*1 jоintly, light subsequent dants only indictment which against Padgett, contained one count the trial court did not err in denying judgment. Atkins’ motion in arrest of
Judgment Phipps, Johnson, J., J., P. concur. affirmed.
Decided 10, June 2008. Vaughan, appellant. McNeill, Robert R. Nicki N. Darragh, Attorney, Lindsay Lee District Burton, H. Assistant Attorney, appellee. District (SOUTH DAKOTA).
A08A0601. LEAGUE v. CITIBANK (663 266) SE2d Phipps, Judge. Appearing pro Joseph League appeals grant se, from a (South Dakota)
summary judgment concerning to Citibank his agreement. League argues indebtedness under a credit card that he paying should be released from the debt on account of Citibank’s respond failure acceptance tо his written notice of its instrument(s)” League’s “signed in satisfac- disagree tion of the debt. We and affirm.
“Summary judgment proper genuine when there is no issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to as a matter of lаw.”1A trial court’s is reviewed de novo appeal, construing light on nonmovant.2 the evidence in most favorable to the shortly viewed,
So the record shows that after Citibank in- creased League credit $21,800 limit frоm $24,000, amounting transferred balances $13,100 to his Citibank account. League payments purchases through February 2006, with February his last made on 14. any payment February did not make under his 23,
statement, which listed a $22,049.46 balance of and asked for payment by March Instead, 21. 20, on March he sent Citibank a disputing February letter 23 statement because Citibank had my prepayments you “failed to agreed account for to credit on [that] stаtement.” claimed that he and Citibank had “en- (588 441) (citation Hosp. System, 554, (2003) App. Walker v. Gwinnett 263 Ga. SE2d (530 477) Ethridge Davis, (2000). v. *2 my agreement you accept signed [an] into . . . would tered note(s) instruments(s) money, as credit or previous transactions”; “re- that Citibank should have account “[t]he February flected] statement; in the 23 and that those credits” money prepayments or on of amount of the credits accepted the February by aрproximate you of be amount” the should the League all also noted that was “uncertain of 23 statement. The letter may prepaid of and that “there be additional the dates the credits” Finally, League requested a written credits that I am entitled to.” explanation might error and noted that he “exercise of the my disputed you comply.” right the amount until to withhold League’s respond to letter.3 Citibank did not
Leаgue payments account, on the which was made no further brought May $24,055.22. of Citibank in 2006 with a balance closed summary judg- moved for an this amount later action granted grounds including on ment, which the trial court specifiс enough trigger any duty League’s to letter was not to investigate by Citibank. appeal preliminary brief on matter,
As a we note that upon any the “The burden is the not contain citations to record. does аffirmatively party alleging Al- in the record.”4 error to show it proceeding though League pro him se, does not relieve is “that status comply procedural obligation with the substantive and of the requirements tо law, the rules of this court.”5 of the including judgment League argues grant summary is invalid 1. that the of transcript proceedings the no the was taken. But because because purpose legal argument of summary heаring is hear of on motion for a evidence, rather than to receive necessary appeal transcript usually in from the is not an
the summary Legal argument judgment. grant motion presented as materiаl to the trial court to whether the already grant of on file authorizes record, It of not the assertions
not evidence. is the evidence 3 highly attorneys “composed originally by trained who claims that his lеtter was involving virtually language specialized type concern suits identical this situation.” For instrument(s)” targeting unwary ing part “signed of “an internet scheme or other 1061, 1064-1066, USA, FSupp.2d relief,” seeking debt Millan v. Chase Bank 533 consumers see (N.D. (C.D. Bank, 1017, 2008); FSupp.2d Cal. n. 1 Cal. Carmack v. Chase Manhattan 2007). (citation (1) (650 783) (2007) Atlanta, City v. Simon (c) (2) (i) (“Each (citation omitted); Appeals Rule enumerated Id. see also Court transcript. by specific record In the suрported in brief reference or error shall be enumeration.”). reference, for or consider such of such the Court wifi not search absence hearing, objections by which counsel at invalidity validity оf sum- or
determines mary judgment.6 argument therefore lacks merit. This gave him 20, 2006 letter asserts that his March
2. required payments right account and also on the to withhold imposing any charges investigate additional before closing disagree. the account. We *3 (“FCBA”)7 (a) Billing Act Section 1666 of the Fair Credit give charge provides to contest a must that a consumer receiving days “billing the within 60 of written notice of a error” containing error. The consumer’s written the statement notice must (1) identify ] [ ] set[ enable the creditor to forth or otherwise (if obligor, any) number of the the name and account (2) obligor’s indicate[ ] belief that the statement con- the billing billing error, amount of such tains a error and the (to (3) obligor’s set[ ] the belief the forth the reasons for billing applicable) statement contains a extent that the error.8 receiving notice, crеditor must “send a written On such written the “(i) obligor,”
acknowledgment and then either make thereof to the “(ii) obligor” appropriate or send a corrections the account obligor, having explanation to the after written or clarification (b) “billing investigation.”9 Section 1666 defines a conducted an including properly “[t]he creditor’s failure to reflect on a error” as by obligor payment the or a credit issued to the statement a (e) Finally, although obligor.”10 subsection of the same statute comply requirements provides creditor who fails to with FCBA that a any right obligor to collect from the the amount indicatеd “forfeits obligor,” by such forfeiture is limited to the $50.11 regulation promulgated of to enforce this section the The federal (often Z”), “Regulation § FCBA, 12 226.13 referred to as CFR 6 (citations (1) (559 450) (2002) Co., 274 Ga. 747 Baker v. Brannen/Goddard 7 seq. § 15 USC 1666 et (a). § USC 9 Id. (4). (b) § 15 USC 1666 (e). § 15 USC 1666 (1) “billing defines a error notice” as written notice that further days state no later after the transmission of the received than (2) “[ejnables reflecting alleged error; the creditor ment identify (3) “[t]o number”; and name and account consumer’s possible, the consumer’s reasons extent indicates belief type, billing exists, that a and the date amount error of belief only he and had But letter said error.”12 [Citibank] agreement, unspecified date, into “that entered some instrument(s) accept my signed would money, previous transactions,” and or account credit money prepayments “[t]he the credits on the amоunt of accepted by approximate [Citibank] should be the amount” specific League contested no transactions the indebtedness. When specify “prepayments” what not were meant оr and did what “understanding” accept his notes form of lead Citibank to as a would billing provide payment, error he Citibank with notice failed to duty trigger investigate under the FCBA.13 sufficient Citibank’s *4 prima moving summary judgment party has made a Once showing law, matter is entitled to as a facie that it suffi- must come forward with rebuttal evidence nonmovant then genuine Here, material show the issue of fact.14 cient to existence League rеquested produced showing and has evidence that in the amount of account, accumulated a balance obtained adequately dispute any charges $24,055.22, and failed to resulting in has forward with rebuttаl that balance. not come concerning concerning indebtedness, his letter an this and evidence respond unapplied require it. to Citibank to to credit was insufficient court’s to therefore affirm the trial We Citibank. League’s remaining have claims of error
3. We considered they that merit. conclude lack Judgment Johnson, Barnes, J., J.,P. con- concurs. C. affirmed. fully specially.
curs specially. Judge, concurring fully Chief fully
BARNES, majority in said I in result and all that is concur public give opinion. separately bench, bar, I write notice to the (b) (3) supplied). (emphasis § 12 CFR 226.13 13 Millan, bank, supra (granting summary judgment to which was not at 1066 See “signed money, respond billing concerning credit or required payment”) (punctuation error notice of Carmack, omitted); (granting supra motion to confirm at against billing plaintiff error in terms but where she asserted a identical arbitration award issuer). “utterly identify any purported note” her credit card failed to sent to 87) (1990). (390 Corp., Del Weldonv. Taco plan” from “North American Educational “debt relief (NAES) through- in numerous cases has been unsuccessful Services” compаny may country. Naming who assist other courts
out the majority, League, analyzing who As noted in the similar issues. are “composed billing says his error letter was he is asserts that attorneys specialize originally by highly in matter.” whо this trained composed by specialists scheme not, this unconscionable Whether in cash and of thousands of dollars not let a debtor obtain tens will goods paying the debt. and then avoid against comрa- card filed numerous actions
Pro se debtors have example, using in to the two methods; for addition nies NAES opinion, unpublished majority an in the California federal cases cited quotes April verbatim the letter from almost 2008 case Kansas ago opinion in than a month A issued less used here. third filed there: a number of similar cases New York refers to plaintiff a debt elimination used Defendant notes (or Company generated by Debt Relief Services scheme Services) to elimi as North American Educational known frivolously by frustrating with claimed debts creditors nate litigation ultimately commencing pro billing se errors and ([defendant’s citing, memo] against as an the creditors pending example, pro Court, action this another se 07CV89A(Sc) .). Lysakawa USA, No. . . v. Chase Bank Kryszak LEXIS USA, 07CV202A,2008 U. S. Dist. v. Chase Bank No. 2008). (W.D. N.Y. *5 targeting unwary “[I]nternet consumers
This scheme fairly enterprise, appears аll of a recent because debt relief” to be opinions involving in 2007 this method of “relief” were issued these coming, opinions issued, be be more will and 2008. More cases will public its resources should learn befоre it is too late that and the plan. buying put better use than this debt relief could be May 19, Decided 11, 2008. Reconsideration denied June Joseph League, pro se. C. Joseph Cooling, Douglas Bracken, Mann, C.
Mann & M. appellee.