Timothy Parent v. Home Depot U.S.A.
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 19959
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Parents sued Citibank and Home Depot in Wisconsin state court for violations of the Wisconsin Consumer Act; case removed to federal court with Citibank dismissed and most claims against Home Depot later granted summary judgment.
- Brenda Parent obtained a Home Depot credit card issued by Citibank in 2002; Krahenbuhl and CLC engaged in a separate contract for a log cabin charged to Krahenbuhl’s card in 2005.
- The $9,761.64 charge was signed by Timothy Parent or an authorized CLC representative and initially charged to Krahenbuhl’s card, then transferred to the Parents’ Home Depot account after Citibank’s investigation.
- Krahenbuhl and CLC later settled their dispute; Parents learned about the transfer to their account roughly a year later, and the balance accrued interest to about $21,000, harming their credit.
- Parents alleged violations of Wis. Stat. §§ 427.104(1)(c), (1)(j) and Wis. Stat. § 421.108; the district court granted Home Depot summary judgment on these claims.
- On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reviews de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment and considers whether Home Depot acted to collect a debt and whether good-faith obligations were violated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Home Depot act to collect a debt? | Parents contend Home Depot engaged in debt collection via the transfer and handling of the charge. | Home Depot did not collect the debt; Citibank owned and administered the debt, so Home Depot lacked debt-collection authority. | No genuine issue; Home Depot did not collect the debt. |
| Did Home Depot violate Wis. Stat. § 421.108 regarding good faith? | Home Depot lied to Citibank and acted in bad faith to collect the debt. | Parents failed to provide definite evidence of bad faith or specific duties to perform in good faith. | Summary judgment proper; no evidence of bad-faith violation. |
| Did the district court improperly rely on inadmissible evidence or shift the burden on summary judgment? | Court relied on improper evidence and relieved Parents of burden to prove elements. | Court correctly applied Celotex and did not improperly shift the burden. | No improper reliance; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment standard and burden-shifting)
- Mercatus Group, LLC v. Lake Forest Hosp., 641 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of summary judgment; genuine issues required)
- Butts v. Aurora Health Care, Inc., 387 F.3d 921 (7th Cir. 2004) (evidence standard for resisting summary judgment)