A Minnesota Appeals Court has affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of a collection operation and has ruled that the individual is liable for the debt on which the underlying collection lawsuit was based.
The background: The case arose from a credit card debt issued by that was sold to a collection operation in May 2023. The individual, the appellant in this case, defaulted on the account in 2019 and was subsequently served with a collection lawsuit in September 2023, seeking the recovery of $5,967.56.
- The appellant denied the debt and requested validation, which the operation responded to by sending copies of billing statements, the assignment details, and the charge-off date.
- The appellant did not respond to the collection operation’s discovery requests or the subsequent motion for summary judgment.
- The court ruled in favor of the collection operation.
The ruling: The Appeals Court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the collection operation, concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact, meaning the collection operation had proven the validity of the debt and the individual’s liability.
- The appeals court found that the appellant’s failure to respond to the discovery requests, specifically the requests for admission, led to those facts being conclusively established. This effectively removed any dispute over the fundamental facts of the case.
- Additionally, the appeals court upheld the district court’s application of the “account-stated doctrine.” The doctrine asserts that when a debtor receives and retains an account statement without objection for a prolonged period, the debtor is deemed to have accepted the accuracy of the debt and agreed to pay it. The appellant’s retention of the March 2020 statement showing the $5,967.56 balance without dispute for nearly three years supported the application of this doctrine, solidifying the appellant’s liability.
