Citibank (South Dakota) N.A., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kristin C. Fornal, aka Kristin C. Stahlman, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11AP-300 (C.P.C. No. 10CV10-15716)
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
July 29, 2014
2014-Ohio-3301
DORRIAN, J.
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
Rendered on July 29, 2014
Javitch, Block & Rathbone, Melissa A. Hager and James Y. Oh, for appellee.
Kristin C. Fornal, pro se.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
DORRIAN, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal by defendant-appellant, Kristin C. Fornal, from an entry of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee, Citibank (South Dakota) (“Citibank“), in Citibank‘s action seeking recovery for alleged nonpayment due on a credit card account.
{¶ 2} On October 27, 2010, Citibank filed a complaint against appellant, alleging default on a credit card account in the amount of $25,614.99. On May 16, 2010, appellant filed an answer pro se. In her answer, appellant stated that she generally denies the allegations based on lack of information and belief. She further stated, however, that, due to financial hardships, she does not have sufficient funds to pay the “full amount of the undisputed debt, if any.” (Emphasis added.) The answer details the efforts appellant
{¶ 3} On appeal, appellant sets forth the following assignment of error for this court‘s review:
The trial court erred by ordering judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $25,614.99 plus interest at the statutory rate from the date of judgment plus court costs against the appellant when the appellant is working with Legal Helpers Debt Resolution to repay the debt owed to the Plaintiff.
{¶ 4} We begin by noting that the brief appellant filed with this court does not comply with
{¶ 5} The argument appellant makes to support her assignment of error is that Citibank did not comply with “FDIC Consumer Protection Laws, Title VIII-Debt collection Practices: Section 809” [sic] regarding validation of debts. (Appellants brief, 3.) She states that, without receiving a validation notice, she did not have an opportunity to discuss payment options with Citibank or its counsel.
{¶ 6} Appellant has not pointed us to any place in the record to show that she raised the issue of lack of a validation notice before the trial court. “A party who fails to raise an argument in the court below waives his or her right to raise it” on appeal. State ex rel. Zollner v. Indus. Comm., 66 Ohio St.3d 276, 278 (1993). See also State ex rel. Ohio Civ. Serv. Employees Assn., AFSCME, Loc. 11, AFL-CIO v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 104 Ohio St.3d 122, 2004-Ohio-6363, ¶ 10, citing State ex rel. Quarto Mining Co. v. Foreman, 79 Ohio St.3d 78, 81 (1997), quoting Goldberg v. Indus. Comm., 131 Ohio St. 399, 404 (1936) (” ‘Ordinarily, reviewing courts do not consider questions not presented to the court whose judgment is sought to be reversed.’ “). Because appellant did not raise this issue below, we conclude that she failed to preserve any alleged error regarding the lack of notice. Furthermore, pursuant to
{¶ 7} Accordingly, we overrule appellant‘s assignment of error and decline to address the merits of the same.
Judgment affirmed.
KLATT and LUPER SCHUSTER, JJ., concur.
_____________________