Login | April 19, 2024
Portage County ‘choice of law’ credit card case reversed
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: October 2, 2017
A Portage County trial court committed prejudicial error by finding an appellant was bound by a “choice of law” provision in a credit card agreement, according to a recent 11th District Court of Appeals decision.
Cindy Keith appealed two decisions granting summary judgment against her on counterclaims and a third-party complaint.
According to appellate records, Keith was divorced in 2000. Although her husband was held solely responsible for any debt under his U.S. Bank credit card, Keith never attempted to remove her name from the account.
In 2003, her husband stopped making payments on a large sum he had charged on the card. He filed for federal bankruptcy and his credit card debt was discharged. Afterward, the company began pursuing legal action against his wife.
In 2007, U.S. Bank’s interest in the Keith account was sold to Dodeka, LLC, which sought to recover the outstanding balance of $10,964.56.
Dodeka sued Keith in Portage County Municipal Court, seeking money damages and attorney fees.
Keith answered the complaint, countersued Dodeka and filed a third-party complaint against Dodeka’s original attorney. She claimed the company and its lawyer violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act.
Keith argued Ohio law does not allow recovery of attorney fees in a consumer debt collection case, that the claim was barred under the statute of limitations and that it was based on fraudulent documentation.
Dodeka contended that although Ohio law does not permit such requests for attorney fees, North Dakota law controlled the terms of its credit card agreement with Andrew Keith. Since his wife was an account holder under her husband’s agreement, she was thus a party to that contract, Dodeka argued.
The case was eventually transferred to Portage County Common Pleas Court.
The trial court determined Dodeka was allowed under North Dakota law to request attorney fees under the “choice of law” provision in the 2002 amended credit card agreement.
The appellate court disagreed, and reversed and remanded the decision.
“Since the trial court did not engage in the necessary analysis to determine whether the choice-of-law provision in the credit card agreement is enforceable against appeallant, Dodeka and (its attorney) were not entitled to prevail on the `attorney fee’ counterclaims as a matter of law,” 11th District Judge Thomas R. Wright said in his majority opinion. “As summary judgment should not have been granted, appellant’s sole assignment has merit.”
Appellate judges Timothy P. Cannon and Colleen Mary O’Toole concurred.
The case is cited Dodeka, LLC v. Keith, 2017-Ohio-7449.