WHOLESALE BUILDERS SUPPLY, INC. v. GREEN-SOURCE DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C., ET AL.
No. 99711
Court of Appeals of Ohio, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
November 21, 2013
2013-Ohio-5129
BEFORE: E.T. Gallagher, J., Jones, P.J., and McCormack, J.
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CV-778003
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
Robert N. Stein
1450 Rockefeller Building
614 Superior Avenue, NW
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
James D. Wilson
Aanchal Soni
James D. Wilson, L.L.C.
29225 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 350
Cleveland, Ohio 44122
{¶1} Defendants-appellants Green Building Technology, L.L.C.1 (“Green“) and John A. Pumper (“Pumper“) (collectively referred to as “appellants“) appeal from an order granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee Wholesale Builders Supply Inc. (“Wholesale“). We find no merit to the appeal and affirm.
{¶2} In February 2008, Pumper executed a credit application on behalf of Green to obtain credit for the purchase of goods from Wholesale. The credit application, which Pumper signed as Green‘s principal, stated in relevant part:
CUSTOMER AGREES TO PAY FINANCE CHARGE AT THE RATE OF 18% PER ANNUM ON PAST DUE INVOICES. CUSTOMER AGREES TO PAY FEE[S], INCLUDING ATTORNEY FEES, FOR COLLECTION OF DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS. BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT YOU ARE BOTH PERSONALLY AND CORPORATELY LIABLE FOR THE TOTAL OF PURCHASES BY YOU OR ANYONE DESIGNATED TO SIGN FOR YOUR PURCHASES ON YOUR ACCOUNT.
Pursuant to the credit agreement, Green Source ordered and received goods and Wholesale issued invoices.
{¶3} After Green failed to pay some of the invoices, Wholesale filed a complaint for breach of contract against Green and Pumper to collect the unpaid balance on Green‘s account. The complaint included a separate claim against Pumper, individually, alleging personal liability based on a guaranty.
{¶5} Appellants opposed Wholesale‘s motion, arguing that Wholesale failed to support its motion with the type of evidence required by
Standard of Review
{¶6} We review an appeal from summary judgment under a de novo standard of review. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996). The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to the essential element of the case with evidence of the type listed in
Evidence in Support of Summary Judgment
{¶7} In the first assignment of error, appellants argue the trial court erred in granting Wholesale‘s motion for summary judgment because its motion was not supported by the kind of evidence required under
{¶8}
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.
{¶9} Thus,
{¶10} In support of its motion for summary judgment, Wholesale submitted Bateson‘s affidavit and copies of certain pages from Pumper‘s deposition transcript along with copies of the exhibits. Wholesale subsequently filed a complete copy of the deposition transcript, which was certified by the court reporter. The court reporter also marked the credit application and invoice statements as exhibits.
{¶11} Although Pumper did not sign the deposition transcript,
{¶12} Appellants also argue the documents referenced in Bateson‘s affidavit are inadmissible because she failed to authenticate them in any fashion. However, Bateson did not attach copies of these documents to the affidavit but mentions facts related to them. She also testifies that all the statements in her affidavit are based on personal knowledge.
{¶13}
{¶14} Here, Bateson not only identifies herself as Wholesale‘s credit manager, she also states that her responsibilities include managing credit transactions. These facts support the basis for her claim that she has personal knowledge of Green‘s account, including the terms of the parties’ agreement, unpaid invoices, and the amount of Green‘s outstanding balance. It is reasonable to conclude that the statements in her affidavit are based upon her personal knowledge of Green Source‘s account.
{¶15} The trial court properly relied on Bateson‘s affidavit and the certified copy of Pumper‘s deposition and exhibits when it granted summary judgment in Wholesale‘s favor.
{¶16} Accordingly, we overrule the first assignment of error.
Personal Guaranty
{¶17} In the second assignment of error, appellants argue there was no evidence establishing that Pumper was a personal guarantor on Green‘s account with Wholesale. They also contend Pumper never agreed to personally guarantee Green‘s debt to Wholesale.
A: I did sign it.
Q: You didn‘t mean it when you signed it?
A: It‘s a typical thing just sign the doggone form there because they wanted a credit app.
* * *
Q: So you don‘t –
A: I signed it.
* * *
Q: Do you see the sentence just down from the same sentence, if you follow me, says, “By signing this agreement you are both personally and corporately liable for the total purchases you and anyone designated to sign for your purchases on your account?” Do you see that?
A: Yes.
Pumper admitted at his deposition that he signed the credit application and thereby agreed to be personally liable for Green‘s purchases. As previously explained, Pumper‘s deposition was properly authenticated and filed with the court as required by the civil rules and was admissible. Therefore, we concur with the trial court‘s finding that Pumper agreed to be personally liable for Green‘s purchases.
{¶19} The second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶20} Judgment affirmed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and TIM McCORMACK, J., CONCUR