CITIBANK, N.A. v. LEWIS J. VALENTINE
Case No. 11 CAE 10 0087
COURT OF APPEALS DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
June 20, 2012
[Cite as Citibank v. Valentine, 2012-Ohio-2786.]
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P.J., Hon. William B. Hoffman, J., Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J.
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 11 CVH 01-0136; JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
For Appellant: LEWIS VALENTINE, PRO SE, 4642 Aberdeen Ave., Dublin, OH 43016
For Appelleе: HARRY J. FINKLE IV, 1900 Fifth Third Center, 511 Walnut St., Cincinnati, OH 45202-3157
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Lewis J. Valentine appeals the September 21, 2011 judgment entry of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee Citibank, N.A.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} On January 27, 2011, Citibank filed a Complaint for Money against Valentine in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. The Complaint alleged Valentine executеd and delivered to Citibank a Home Equity Line of Credit Agreement and Disclosure on March 10, 2006. In the Complaint, Citibank refers to the Home Equity Line of Credit Agreement and Disclosure as a Promissory Note. The Home Equity Line of Credit Agreement and Disclosure was attached to the Complaint.
{¶3} Based on the terms of the Home Equity Line of Credit Agreement and Disclosure, Valentine was eligible to finance up to $285,000. Valentine drew on the account and made some payments on the account. Valentine became delinquent on the account and оwes $276,748.14, plus interest and costs.
{¶4} The case proceeded through limited discovery. On June 13, 2011, Citibank filed a motion for summary judgment on its Complaint. The motion for summary judgment was supported by the affidavit of Courtney Beaver, Assistant Vice President of Citibank. Valentine filed a reply, attaching his personal affidavit in support.
{¶5} On September 21, 2011, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of Citibank. The trial court found there was no genuine issue of material fact that Valentine entered into the Home Equity Line of Credit Agreement
{¶6} It is from this judgment Valentine now appeals.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶7} Valentine’s pro se appeal raises five Assignments of Error:
{¶8} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN BY SUBSTITUTING A TRUTH IN LENDING DOCUMENT TITLED HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT AGREEMENT AND DISCLOSURE FOR THE ACTUAL PROMISSORY NOTE, HENCE SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECOMES INAPPROPRIATE AND MUST BE DENIED.
{¶9} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING THE PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE IS NOT SEEKING JUDGMENT ON A NOTE.
{¶10} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN BY SUBSTITUTING THE TRIAL COURT’S OPINION IN PLACE OF A KNOWN DEFECTIVE AFFIDAVIT IN BY RENDERING JUDGMENT APPLYING THE COURT’S SUBSTITUTION AS BASIS.
{¶11} “IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN APPLYING THE LAW TO THE UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS THUS RENDERING PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT INAPPROPRIATE AND MUST BE DENIED.
{¶12} “V. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN BY PREMATURELY HALTING THE DISCOVERY PROCESS THUS DENYING DEFENDANT/APPELLANT HIS EVIDENCE AND ANY PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW.”
I., II., III., IV.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶13} We review Valentine’s first, second, third, and fourth Assignments of Error together becаuse they relate to Citibank’s motion for summary judgment and the trial court’s granting of the same.
{¶14} We review a summary judgment de novo and without deference to the trial court‘s determination. Whеn an appellate court reviews a trial court‘s disposition of a summary judgment motion, it applies the same standard of review as the trial court and conducts an independent review, without deference to the trial court‘s determination. We must affirm the trial court‘s judgment if any grounds the movant raised in the trial court support it. Westbrook v. Swiatek, 5th Dist. No. 09CAE09-0083, 2011-Ohio-781, ¶ 43.
{¶15} Pursuant to
{¶16} The moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the trial court of thе basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record before the trial court, which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of fact on a material element of the nonmoving party‘s claim. Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). The nonmoving party then has a reciprocal burden of specificity
HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT AGREEMENT AND DISCLOSURE
{¶17} Valentine argues in his first and second Assignments of Error the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of Citibank because in support of Citibank’s motion for summary judgment, Citibank presented a Home Equity Line of Credit Agreement and Disclosure, not a Promissory Note. Valentine asserts he entered into a Promissory Note with Citibank, not a Hоme Equity Line of Credit Agreement and Disclosure. Because Citibank has failed to produce the valid documents in support of its motion for summary judgment, Valentine argues there is a genuinе issue of material fact as to whether there is a breach of the Promissory Note.
{¶18} We disagree. As the trial court noted in its September 21, 2011 judgment entry granting summary judgment in favor of Citibank, Citibank рroduced a contract for a Home Equity Line of Credit signed by Valentine on March 10, 2006. The Home Equity Line of Credit Agreement and Disclosure, which Citibank refers to as a “Note,” contains the terms of the agreement. The terms of the agreement include the amount of the credit limit, the interest rate on the agreement, payment obligations, and default provisions. This evidence is verified with a
{¶19} Valentine argues in his third Assignment of Error that the affidavit provided by Citibank is defective. He refers to “Exhibit A” referenсed in the Beaver affidavit in support of the motion for summary judgment. The Beaver affidavit states
{¶20} The burden thereupon shifted to Valentine to affirmatively demonstrate the existence of genuine issues of material fact. Dresher, supra. Valentine doеs not dispute he borrowed money from Citibank and he made payments on the loan. His affidavit, filed with his response to Citibank’s motion for summary judgment, attests that at the closing he signed a Promissоry Note and a mortgage deed to the property. He argues the Home Equity Line of Credit Agreement and Disclosure attached to Citibank’s Complaint and to the motion for summary judgmеnt is not the Promissory Note signed by Valentine but rather a Truth in Lending Statement.
{¶22} Upon our de novo review, we find that Citibank met its burden under
{¶23} Valentine’s first, second, third, and fourth Assignments of Error are ovеrruled.
V.
{¶24} Valentine argues in his fifth Assignment of Error the trial court erred in ruling on Citibank’s motion for summary judgment while discovery was pending in the case. We disagree.
{¶25}
{¶26} The record shows Valentine made no such motion to the trial court to continue the summary judgment for Valentine to receive his discovery requests. While Valentine proceeded pro se, pro se litigants are not exempt from complying with the rules and regulations. “Pro se civil litigants are bound by the same rules and procedures as those litigants who rеtain counsel. They are not to be accorded greater rights and must accept the results of their own mistakes and errors.” Meyers v. First Ntl. Bank of Cincinnati, 3 Ohio App.3d 209, 210 (1st Dist.1981).
{¶27} The absence of a
{¶28} Valentine’s fifth Assignment of Error is overruled.
{¶29} Our de novo review of Citibank’s motion for summary judgment shows that reasonable minds could only conclude that Citibank is entitled to judgment as a matter of lаw.
{¶30} Valentine’s five Assignments of Error are overruled.
{¶31} The judgment of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
By: Delaney, P.J. Hoffman, J. and Edwards, J. concur.
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS
PAD:kgb
CITIBANK, N.A. v. LEWIS J. VALENTINE
Case No. 11 CAE 10 0087
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR DELAWARE COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Opinion on file, the judgment of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs assessed to Appellant.
HON. PATRICIA A. DELANEY
HON. WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN
HON. JULIE A. EDWARDS