Haynes v. Ally Fin., Inc.Haynes v. Ally Fin., Inc.
{1} Plaintiff-Appellant Dominque Haynes appeals the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas granting the motion for summary judgment of Defendant-Appellee Ally Financial, Inc. (“Ally Financial“) and denying Ms. Haynes‘s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, this Court affirms.
I.
Relevant Background Information
{2} This case concerns the repossession of a 2018 Kia Sorento (“the vehicle“). Ms. Haynes purchased the vehicle from Preston Chevrolet-Cadillac (“Preston“) in November 2020 and entered into a Retail Installment Sale Contract (“the contract“) with Preston. Ms. Haynes defaulted on her payment obligation under the contract and the vehicle was repossessed.
{3} Ms. Haynes filed a “Complaint and Motion for Possession of Personal Property” in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas alleging her vehicle, the 2018 Kia Sorento, was
{4} On July 8, 2024, in response to Ally Financial‘s answer, Ms. Haynes filed a pleading captioned:
Memo In Opposition of Respondent
Motion to Dismiss Respondent
Motion for [Judgment]
Motion for Injunctive Relief
In addition to the pleading, on July 8, 2024, Ms. Haynes also filed four exhibits: (1) a receipt from the Summit County Clerk of Courts; (2) an application for dealer assignment; (3) a memorandum vehicle title; and (4) a vehicle service contract.
{5} The pleading filed by Ms. Haynes on July 8, 2024 was stricken by the trial court because it was in contravention of a magistrate‘s order denying Ms. Haynes‘s motion for time to respond to Ally Financial‘s answer and because no authority exists under the
{6} Ally Financial filed a motion for summary judgment and attached the affidavit of Jakayla Smith. The relevant facts averred by Ms. Smith were: Ms. Smith was employed by Ally Bank as a Recoveries Associate Analyst; Ally Bank is a subsidiary of Ally Financial and they are separate companies; Ms. Haynes had defaulted on her payment obligations under the contract; the contract for the purchase of the 2018 Kia Sorento was between Ms. Haynes and Preston; and Ally
{7} On August 8, 2024, Ms. Haynes responded in opposition to Ally Financial‘s motion for summary judgment and also moved for summary judgment. That same date, Ms. Haynes again filed the same four exhibits that she had previously filed on July 8, 2024.
{8} Ally Financial filed a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment and in opposition to Ms. Haynes‘s motion for summary judgment arguing Ms. Haynes had not presented any
{9} In its order granting summary judgment in favor of Ally Financial, the trial court stated, “[Ms.] Haynes has not provided any evidence permissible under
{10} Ms. Haynes appeals, raising four assignments of error for our review. To facilitate our analysis, we have grouped some of the assignments of error.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN STRIKING [MS. HAYNES‘S] MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON JULY 8, 2024[,] AS THE MAGISTRATE ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FORBIDDING [MS. HAYNES] TO ANSWER.
{11} In her first assignment of error, Ms. Haynes argues the trial court erred by striking her “motion for summary judgment on July 8, 2024[.]” A review of the trial court docket shows on July 22, 2024, the trial court struck Ms. Haynes‘s “[m]otions that were filed on July 8, 2024[.]” Ms. Haynes did not file a motion captioned motion for summary judgment until August 8, 2024. If Ms. Haynes is arguing the trial court erred by striking Ms. Haynes‘s attempt to respond to Ally Financial‘s answer and her motion to reconsider the magistrate‘s July 5, 2024 order denying her motion requesting an extension of time to respond to Ally Financial‘s answer, the trial court did not err. The
{12} Accordingly, Ms. Haynes‘s first assignment of error is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING [ALLY FINANCIAL] SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS A GENUINE ISSUE OF [FACT] REMAINS AND [MS. HAYNES] DID NOT FAIL TO ESTABLISH [ALLY FINANCIAL‘S] INVOLVEMENT, AS [ALLY FINANCIAL] DID NOT REPLY WITH SUFFICIENT FACTS THAT THEY WERE NOT THE CORRECT DEFENDANT AND THAT EITHER [ALLY FINANCIAL] OR ITS SUBSIDIARY HAD RIGHTS TO REPOSSESS PROPERTY, AND THE AFFIDAVIT PROVIDED IS INSUFFICIENT TO SHOW ANY OTHER ASSIGNMENT TO A THIRD PARTY.
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED CLAIMING [MS. HAYNES] DID NOT REPLY IN SUPPORT OF [MS. HAYNES‘S] SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND OPPOSITION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR [ALLY FINANCIAL], THUS DID NOT CONSIDER THE ENTIRE RECORD TO ENTER JUDG[]MENT PROPERLY, THUS NOT CONSIDERING THE DEALER ASSIGNMENT PROVIDED BY [MS. HAYNES] WAS SO HARMLESS TO PRODUCE SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE AS IT WAS IN FACT IN THE AUGUST 8, 2024 MEMORANDUM AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. THUS, TRIAL COURT FAILED TO VIEW THE EVIDENCE IN THE LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO [MS. HAYNES], AS IS REQUIRED WHEN CONSIDERING [ALLY FINANCIAL‘S] MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
{13} In her second assignment of error, Ms. Haynes argues the trial court erred in granting Ally Financial‘s motion for summary judgment. Specifically, she argues there remain genuine issues of material fact as to whether Ally Financial is the correct defendant and whether Ally Financial or its subsidiary Ally Bank, which is not a party to this case, had rights to repossess Ms. Haynes‘s property. In her third assignment of error, Ms. Haynes argues the trial court erred in not considering the dealer assignment submitted by Ms. Haynes and in failing to view the evidence in the light most favorable to her when granting summary judgment in favor of Ally Financial.
{14} Ally Financial argues it is not the correct defendant and points to Ms. Smith‘s affidavit, which stated Ally Financial had no involvement with the contract and nothing to do with the repossession and sale of the vehicle. While Ally Financial asserts Ally Bank was the assignee of the contract, the trial court did not reach this issue, and neither do we. Here, we must decide if the trial court erred by determining there were no genuine issues of material fact concerning whether Ally Financial is a party to the contract and whether Ally Financial was involved in the repossession and sale of the vehicle.
{16}
Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to
the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party‘s favor.
(Emphasis added.)
{17} As to the form of affidavits in support of and opposing a motion for summary judgment,
[s]upporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated in the affidavit. Sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts of papers referred to in an affidavit shall be attached to or served with the affidavit. . .When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule . . . an [adverse party‘s] response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the party.
{18} Summary judgment is appropriate where the nonmoving party does not produce evidence on any issue for which that party bears the burden of production at trial. Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd. of Texas, 59 Ohio St.3d 108 (1991), paragraph three of the syllabus. Likewise, “[t]he moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that there are no genuine issues of material fact with reference to ‘appropriate evidentiary materials.‘” Myers v. Univ. Hosps. Health Sys., 2023-Ohio-3045, ¶ 7 (9th Cir. Dist.), citing Byrd v. Smith, 2006-Ohio-3455, ¶ 10. “Appropriate evidentiary materials” listed in
{19} Ally Financial submitted evidence in the form of Jakayla Smith‘s affidavit that it was not a party to the contract and was not involved in the repossession or sale of the vehicle and
{20} Accordingly, Ms. Haynes‘s second and third assignments of error are overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV
THE COURT ERRED IN NOT APPLYING THE BELVEDERE TEST TO WHETHER OR NOT TO PIERCE THE VEIL AND HOLD [ALLY FINANCIAL] RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLY BANK[] AND ANY OTHER NONPART[Y‘S] ACTIONS INCLUDING FALSIFIED AFFIDAVIT WHICH WERE SOLELY COMMITTED ON BEHALF OF ITS PARENT COMPANY, [ALLY FINANCIAL].
{21} In her fourth assignment of error, Ms. Haynes argues the trial court failed to consider piercing the corporate veil and holding Ally Financial responsible for the actions of Ally Bank and other non-parties. However, Ms. Haynes did not make a claim for “piercing the corporate veil” in her complaint. Ms. Haynes argues for the first time on appeal the affidavit of Ally Bank was “initiated, in part, to further or promote the master‘s business.” But she did not raise this issue in her motion for summary judgment or in opposition to Ally Financial‘s motion for summary judgment. Thus, she has waived the issue. It is axiomatic that a litigant‘s failure to
{22} To the extent that Ms. Haynes argues Ally Financial should be liable for the actions of non-party Ally Bank because “[t]he respondeat superior doctrine makes an employer or principal vicariously liable for the torts of its employees or agents[,] Ms. Haynes failed to submit or point to any
{23} Accordingly, Ms. Haynes‘s fourth assignment of error is overruled.
III.
{24} For the forgoing reasons, Ms. Haynes‘s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run.
BETTY SUTTON
FOR THE COURT
STEVENSON, P. J. CONCURS.
CARR, J. CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY.
APPEARANCES:
DOMINQUE HAYNES, pro se Appellant.
JOEL E. SECHLER, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.