Kent State Univ. v. Manley
| Docket Number | 112551 |
| Decision Date | 21 December 2023 |
| Parties | KENT STATE UNIVERSITY, C/O STATE OF OHIO COLLECTIONS ENFORCEMENT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERICA E. MANLEY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
1
2023-Ohio-4650
KENT STATE UNIVERSITY, C/O STATE OF OHIO COLLECTIONS ENFORCEMENT, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ERICA E. MANLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 112551
Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
December 21, 2023
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-20-931391
Keith D. Weiner & Associates Co., LPA, and Suzana Pastor, for appellee.
Erica E. Manley, pro se.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, PRESIDING JUDGE
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Erica E. Manley, pro se, appeals from the trial court's judgment granting the motion for summary judgment of plaintiff-appellee,
Kent State University[1] and ordering judgment against her in the amount of $16,517.68, plus collection costs and interest. Finding some merit to the appeal, we reverse and remand.
I. Background
{¶ 2} In March 2020, Kent State filed a two-count complaint against Manley. Count One asserted a claim on an account, contending that Manley was indebted to Kent State on an account for tuition and other educational services in the amount of $17,049.40, as set forth on the statement of Manley's account with Kent State's Bursar's Office that was attached to the complaint. Count Two set forth a claim for unjust enrichment, alleging that Manley had been unjustly enriched in the amount of $17,049.40 for failing to pay Kent State for educational and other services rendered.
{¶ 3} Manley timely answered the complaint and asserted various defenses, including failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, failure to join all necessary parties, and lack of service. She also asserted a counterclaim containing 11 different counts against Kent State and its counsel.
{¶ 4} In her counterclaim, Manley alleged that she registered for graduate-level courses for the spring 2015 semester at Kent State and applied for federal student aid funds to cover her tuition and living expenses. She alleged that in early 2015, Kent State advised her that her federal student loan had been disbursed. As demonstrated on the statement of Manley's account attached to Kent State's complaint, a $9,013 credit remained after Kent State applied the loan proceeds to Manley's tuition, and that amount was transferred by Kent State on March 17, 2015, to Higher One, Inc., a third-party entity that Kent State had contracted with to, among other things, disburse student loan proceeds.
{¶ 5} Manley alleged in her counterclaim that the refund due her was transferred to Higher One without her consent or authorization and, further, that she did not accept Higher One's terms, conditions, and fees required to open an account with Higher One in order to obtain her refund. Manley's counterclaim detailed alleged communications between her, the Bursar's Office at Kent State, and Higher One in which she first asked Kent State and then Higher One to mail a refund check to her, and when that did not happen, to cancel her student loan. She alleged that the refund from Higher One was never delivered to her and, as a result, she was unable to attend classes at Kent State because she did not have funds to pay for class supplies or sufficient funds for living expenses so she could quit work to attend class.
{¶ 6} Among the 11 counts in her counterclaim, Manley alleged that Kent State's actions were in violation of federal law regarding the disbursement of loan proceeds, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act,
and that Kent State's complaint improperly calculated the collection costs and interest due. Manley also sought a declaratory judgment that Kent State had engaged in unconscionable practices and an injunction enjoining Kent State from violating consumer protection and debt collection laws. The trial court subsequently granted Kent State's motion to dismiss Manley's counterclaim and denied Manley's motion for leave to file an amended counterclaim.
{¶ 7} Manley also filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing, among other things, that a plaintiff may not recover under a theory of unjust enrichment when the parties' relationship is governed by a contract, Kent State never properly served her with the complaint, and it failed to join Higher One, a necessary and indispensable party, in the action.
{¶ 8} Kent State then filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The court then denied Manley's motion to dismiss as moot. Manley filed an appeal, which this court dismissed for lack of a final appealable order as required by R.C. 2505.02 because the trial court had not addressed the 11 counts in Manley's counterclaim, including her claim for a declaratory judgment, and thus, they remained pending. Kent State Univ. v. Manley, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110111, Motion No. 546460 (May 10, 2021) ("Manley I ").
{¶ 9} Upon remand, the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc entry that included a ruling that "each and every counterclaim asserted and/or stated by the defendant in her answer and counterclaim are dismissed." Manley again appealed. This court again dismissed the appeal, finding the trial court's judgment entry was
a nullity because the trial court entered the judgment without jurisdiction while the case was pending in the Ohio Supreme Court. Kent State Univ. v. Manley, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111483, 2022-Ohio-4512 ("Manley II ").
{¶10} Upon remand, the trial court issued a judgment entry dismissing all of Manley's counterclaims and granting Kent State's motion to dismiss Manley's claim for declaratory relief due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Manley again appealed. We now have a final appealable order and will consider the appeal. For clarity, we consider some assignments of error out of order.
II. Law and Analysis
A. Sufficiency of Service
{¶ 11} In her first assignment of error, Manley contends that she was never served with Kent State's complaint and, therefore, the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over her. Manley does not dispute that service by certified mail was sent to her home address but contends that she was not served with the complaint because someone fraudulently signed her name on the certified mail receipt.
{¶12} This court considered and rejected the same argument in Manley II. This court found that "Manley did not present any evidence other then her own self-serving assertion that her signature was forged by someone." Kent State, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111483, 2022-Ohio-4512 at ¶ 22. The court stated:
Self-serving testimony is insufficient to rebut the presumption of proper service for obvious reasons; any party could change his or her signature in order to claim lack of service. To allow parties to avoid service with self-serving testimony would encourage abuse of the process and make it difficult to obtain service. Manley did not provide any evidence, other than her own self-serving testimony, to establish
lack of service. Therefore, she failed to rebut the presumption of proper service, and the trial court had personal jurisdiction over Manley.
Id. at ¶ 28.
{¶ 13} Our previous determination that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear Kent State's claim is the law of the case. Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, "the decision of a reviewing court in a case remains the law of that case on legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in the case at both trial and reviewing levels." Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1, 3, 462 N.E.2d 410 (1984); accord Rimmer v. CitiFinancial Inc., 2020-Ohio-99, 151 N.E.3d 988, ¶ 43 (8th Dist.). The law-of-the-case doctrine ensures consistency of results in a case, prevents endless litigation by settling issues, and preserves the structure of superior and inferior courts as designed by the Ohio Constitution. Hubbard ex rel. Creed v. Sauline, 74 Ohio St.3d 402, 404, 659 N.E.2d 781 (1996).
{¶ 14} Because our prior decision in Manley II that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear Kent State's claims is the law of the case, the first assignment of error is overruled.
B. Joinder of Indispensable Party
{¶ 15} Section 13 of the Borrower's Rights and Responsibilities Statement regarding the federal student loan Manley obtained in 2015 states:
If your school credits your loan money to your account and the amount credited is more than the amount of your tuition and fees, room and board, and other authorized charges, the excess amount is called a credit balance. Unless you authorize your school to hold the credit balance for you, your school must pay you the credit balance within the following timeframes:
If the credit balance occurs after the first day of class of a payment period (your school can tell you this date), your school must pay you the credit balance no later than 14 days after the date the balance occurs.
If the credit balance occurs on or before the first day of class of a payment period, your school must pay you the credit balance no later than 14 days after the first day of class of the payment period.
(Kent State motion for summary judgment, Exhibit D6.)
{¶ 16} In an email from the Kent State Bursar's Office to Manley dated April 14, 2015, Kent State informed Manley that Higher One was "the company that works with Kent State to disburse any refund" and that to obtain her refund, Manley should go online to select her refund preference with Higher One of either a paper check, direct deposit, or a free checking account. (Appellant's brief in opposition to motion for summary judgment, Exhibit N2) The Bursar's Office acknowledged that pursuant to federal regulations, the Office had up to 14 days after receipt of loan proceeds to issue a credit refund and informed Manley that "[y]our Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan transferred to your Bursar account on 03/17/15 and we issued the refund for you the...
To continue reading
Request your trial