Target Natl. Bank v. Loncar
2013 Ohio 3350
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Target filed a delinquency action against Loncar for $13,940.21 and attached a June 11, 2010 statement due July 8.
- Default judgment was granted then vacated after Loncar claimed she never received the complaint; Loncar answered.
- Target moved for summary judgment; Exhibit A: monthly statements Jan 11, 2005–June 11, 2010; Exhibit B: affidavit of a Target employee as custodian of records.
- Loncar argued the affidavit was deficient and statements were not properly incorporated; she also swore in a response affidavit denying the amount due.
- Trial court granted summary judgment on May 4, 2012; appellate review raised two issues: sufficiency of the affidavit and existence of a genuine issue of material fact.
- Appellate court affirmed the judgment but reduced it by $5 to $13,935.21 after de novo review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the employee affidavit sufficient and properly tied to the attached statements? | Target argues the affidavit shows personal knowledge and that statements are true copies | Loncar argues the affidavit lacks personal knowledge and statements weren’t properly incorporated | Affidavit sufficient; statements properly incorporated |
| Does Loncar's response create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the amount due? | No genuine issue; affidavit supports the amount | Denial creates a factual dispute over the amount | Bare denial not sufficient; summary judgment upheld but reduced by $5 |
| Did Loncar meet reciprocal summary-judgment burden with her response? | Her bare denial fails to show facts for trial | A genuine issue exists due to asserted discrepancies | Bare denial insufficient; reciprocal burden not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996) (establishes reciprocal burden for summary judgment responses)
- Corrigan v. Seminatore, 66 Ohio St.2d 459 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1981) (documents referred to in affidavits must be attached or served)
- Leibreich v. A.J. Refrigeration, Inc., 67 Ohio St.3d 266 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1993) (personal knowledge can be inferred from affidavit content)
- Doe v. Shaffer, 90 Ohio St.3d 388 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000) (de novo review standards in summary-judgment context)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1988) (reciprocal burden of specificity in response to summary judgment)
- McGuire v. Lovell, 85 Ohio St.3d 1216 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999) (nonmovant must present specific facts to defeat summary judgment)