Lvnv Funding LLC v. Culgan

• Docket Number: 3-23-31
• Decision Date: 26 December 2023
• Citation: 2023 Ohio 4706
• Parties: LVNV FUNDING LLC, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. CLIFFORD CULGAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

1

2023-Ohio-4706

LVNV FUNDING LLC, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
CLIFFORD CULGAN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

No. 3-23-31

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Third District, Crawford

December 26, 2023

Appeal from Crawford County Municipal Court Trial Court No. CVF2201000

Judgment Affirmed

Clifford Culgan, Appellant

Megan J. Urban for Appellee

OPINION

2

WILLAMOWSKI, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Clifford Culgan ("Culgan") appeals the judgment of the Crawford County Municipal Court, alleging that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee, LVNV Funding, LLC ("LVNV"). For the reasons set forth below, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶2} On September 6, 2022, LVNV filed a complaint against Culgan. LVNV alleged that Culgan had a revolving line of credit from Synchrony Bank but failed to make the required payments on his account. LVNV subsequently acquired rights to the outstanding obligation and sought a judgment against Culgan in the amount of $1,381.70 plus interest. On April 14, 2023, LVNV filed a motion for summary judgment. On May 30, 2023, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of LVNV.

{¶3} Culgan filed his notice of appeal pro se on June 23, 2023. On appeal, he raises the following two assignments of error:

First Assignment of Error

The Municipal Court erred to the prejudice of the appellant's substantial constitutional and statutory right by granting summary judgment in favor of the appellee by holding the federal statutes do not require notice to the appellant prior to filing a civil action and do not require proof of debt by submission of the original signed contract

3

Second Assignment of Error

The Municipal Court erred to the prejudice of the appellant's substantial constitutional and statutory rights by granting summary judgment in favor of the appellee by holding the federal statutes do not require the appellee to produce a copy of the original signed contract to establish venue.

First Assignment of Error

{¶4} Culgan argues that the trial court erred in concluding that LVNV did not have to comply with the notice requirements contained in 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a) prior to filing this action.

Standard of Review

{¶5} Appellate courts review an order granting summary judgment de novo. James B. Nutter & Co. v. Estate of Neifer, 3d Dist. Hancock No. 5-16-20, 2016-Ohio-7641, ¶ 5. Under Civ.R. 56, summary judgment is to be granted

only when it is clear '(1) that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (2) that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) 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, who is entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in his favor.'

Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 66, 375 N.E.2d 46, 47 (1978). The party that moved for summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of material fact exists for trial and that it is, therefore, entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Beair v. Management & Training Corp., 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-21-07, 2021-Ohio-4110, ¶ 15.

4

{¶6} If the moving party carries its initial burden, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to demonstrate that a dispute over a genuine issue of material fact exists for trial. Hall v. Kosei St. Marys Corporation, 2023-Ohio-2021, 218 N.E.3d 205, ¶ 5 (3d Dist). To prevail, the non-moving party must do more than make mere denials but must identify specific facts that establish its position. Durfor v. West Mansfield Conservation Club, 3d Dist. No. 8-21-26, 2022-Ohio-416, ¶ 13. A motion for summary judgment must be granted with caution because it is a procedural device that terminates the litigation. Williams v. ALPLA, Inc., 2017-Ohio-4217, 92 N.E.3d 256, ¶ 6 (3d Dist.). "The court must thus construe all evidence and resolve all doubts in favor of the non-moving party * * *." Webster v. Shaw, 2016-Ohio-1484, 63 N.E.3d 677, ¶ 8 (3d Dist).

Legal Standard

{¶7} Section 15 U.S.C. 1692g(a) of the FDCPA "requires debt collectors to issue a 'validation notice,' either in the initial communication with a consumer or within five days of that initial communication, that informs the consumer of certain rights * * *." Federal Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Lamar, 503 F.3d 504, 508 (6th Cir. 2007). Importantly, these notice...