Login | July 09, 2025
Franklin County’s appeals court reverses right-to-due-process ruling
KEITH ARNOLD
Special to the Legal News
Published: October 30, 2024
A Franklin County appellate panel reversed a trial court ruling that ran counter to a Dublin woman’s right to due process in a collections action against the woman.
The 3-0 Tenth District Court of Appeals panel determined that the Franklin County Municipal Court committed reversible error when it granted Credit Corp Solutions Inc.’s motion for summary judgment without allowing Rhonda Rivas the time required to respond to the motion.
“The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment on Nov. 8, 2023, only two days after it was filed,” Tenth District Judge Kristin Boggs wrote for the court. “Within the prescribed response period, but after the court’s judgment, Rivas filed both her ‘Notice of Compliance and Filing of Documents’ regarding her claim of identity theft and her denial of knowledge of the subject account and her objection to and motion to set aside the trial court’s judgment entry.”
Boggs’ opinion was based on Civ.R. 6 of Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, which states, in part, that responses to motions for summary judgment may be served within 28 days after service of the motion.
The rule allows for an additional three days for service by mail.
“The trial court deemed Credit Corp’s motion for summary judgment filed instanter on Nov. 6, 2023. Thus, applying Civ.R. 6 … , Rivas had until Dec. 7, 2023, to file a memorandum in opposition to that motion,” Boggs continued.
According to case summary, Credit Corp filed the action against Rivas, asserting two claims, one for nonpayment on an account and one for unjust enrichment.
The debt collection firm was the assignee of Rivas’ Citibank credit card account which was in default with an unpaid balance of $1,916.54.
In its second count, Credit Corp alleged that Rivas was unjustly enriched in the amount of the outstanding balance on her account.
Rivas responded to the complaint and requested additional information from Credit Corp about the alleged debt and subsequently filed a motion to dismiss and an addendum to the motion, which the trial court denied, summary continued.
After mediation efforts failed, a pretrial memorandum filed Sept. 1, 2023, required that the parties provide discovery by Sept. 15, 2023, and exchange trial notebooks by Nov. 30, 2023.
The case was set for a bench trial on Dec. 7, 2023, the summary noted.
On Sept. 26, 2023, Rivas filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the company could not produce a signed contract demonstrating that Rivas opened the account in question.
She asserted that the account is not hers, that she was part of a 2017 Equifax data breach and that she is pursuing recourse for identify theft.
The trial court granted Credit Corp leave to file its motion for summary judgment instanter Nov. 6, 2023.
Two days later, the trial court signed and filed a judgment entry prepared by Credit Corp’s counsel, granting Credit Corp’s motion for summary judgment and entering judgment against Rivas in the amount of $1,916.54, plus interest at the rate of 5 percent per annum from the date of judgment, prejudgment costs of $123 and post judgment costs, summary detailed.
Rivas filed a Defendant’s Notice of Compliance and Filing of Documents Dec. 1, 2023, that confirmed her involvement in an Equifax data breach.
Additional documents included a 2013 report to the Marion County Sheriff’s Office of fraudulent activity on her debit card, a 2023 report to the Columbus Police Department of identity theft, an identity theft report to the Federal Trade Commission dated Oct. 4, 2023, and a completed and signed Identity Theft Notification and Affidavit form from the Ohio Attorney General, Consumer Protection Section.
Rivas followed up Dec. 4, 2023, filing an objection to the judge’s decision, seeking the judgment entry be set aside.
She argued that the trial court inappropriately ruled on Credit Corp’s motion for summary judgment before the exhibit submission date of Nov. 30, 2023.
The trial court overruled the woman’s objection Jan. 19, 2024, in an entry which stated, “This is a final, appealable order.”
On appeal, Rivas stated that the Municipal Court erred by not properly reviewing all her exhibits and that it abused its discretion by dismissing her action before the scheduled trial.
She also wrote that she was deprived due process by not being allowed to plead her case.
“Before ruling on a summary judgment motion, a court must allow time for a full and fair response from the non-moving party,” Boggs wrote. “Failure to do so implicates the non-moving party’s due process rights and constitutes reversible error. Here, the trial court committed reversible error when it granted Credit Corp’s motion for summary judgment without allowing Rivas the time required under Civ.R. 6(C)(1) and (D) to respond.”
The appellate panel also remanded the matter to the Municipal Court to give Rivas the opportunity to respond to the company’s motion for summary judgment and for further proceedings consistent with the law.
Copyright © 2024 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved