An Ohio Appeals Court has affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of a debt buyer that was accused of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in a case that centered on the documentation provided by the consumer in attempting to make her case.
The background: The case centered around a collection lawsuit filed by a debt buyer, which had purchased the consumer’s defaulted credit card account.
- The consumer responded with counterclaims alleging violations of the FDCPA, Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act, and several common law causes of action. She argued that the buyer lacked standing, that key affidavits were fabricated or incomplete, and that arbitration should have been compelled under her original card agreement.
- The debt buyer supported its motion for summary judgment with affidavits from a recovery manager at the original creditor and one of its own specialists, along with the consumer’s deposition testimony. These documents established the creation of the account, the nonpayment, the amount owed, and the valid assignment of the debt.
- The consumer objected, arguing the affidavits contained false statements, hearsay, and incomplete information.
- She submitted her own expert reports and declarations in an effort to undermine the debt buyer’s evidence, but the court refused to consider them because they were unsworn and not notarized.
- The trial court also noted that the consumer admitted to receiving a letter showing the unpaid balance but tried to contest the debt without presenting any evidence that the balance was inaccurate. It found her testimony lacked credibility, particularly when she claimed not to know the balance despite acknowledging years of payments.
- In the end, the trial court awarded judgment to the debt buyer for $11,218.08 plus interest, and dismissed all of the consumer’s counterclaims.
The ruling: The appeals court also sided with the debt buyer, finding that the trial court properly considered affidavits from both the original creditor and the debt buyer that authenticated the chain of assignment and the amount owed.
- The court emphasized that the consumer’s evidence, including expert reports and declarations, was not properly sworn or notarized, and therefore carried no evidentiary value.
- On the FDCPA counterclaims, the court ruled that allegations of rudeness and yelling by representatives of the defendant, even if true, did not rise to a statutory violation.
- The court also rejected arguments that documentation was misleading or incomplete, pointing out that the debt buyer had attached the very materials the consumer claimed were missing.
