Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Citibank, N.A. v. LaPierre

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

July 11, 2013

Citibank, N.A., Successor to Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Lori Sandys LaPierre, aka Lori L. LaPierre, Defendant-Appellant.

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (C.P.C. No. 11CVH07-9383)

Javitch, Block & Rathbone, LLC, Audra T. Funk, James Y. Oh, and Melissa A. Hager, for appellee.

Lori L. LaPierre, pro se.

DECISION

DORRIAN, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Lori Sandys LaPierre ("appellant"), appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying her motion to vacate judgment. Because we conclude the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion to vacate, we affirm.

{¶ 2} On July 29, 2011, plaintiff-appellee, Citibank, N.A., successor to Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. ("appellee"), filed a complaint asserting that appellant owed money on a credit card account. Appellant, acting pro se, filed an answer on August 29, 2011. On December 21, 2011, appellee filed a motion for summary judgment, which appellant opposed. The next day, appellee filed a request to extend its time to respond to appellant's requests for discovery. The trial court granted appellee 30 additional days from the date of receipt of an electronic version of appellant's discovery requests. The trial court separately denied appellee's motion for summary judgment to allow discovery to be completed.

{¶ 3} Five months later, on July 24, 2012, appellee filed a motion for leave to file a renewed motion for summary judgment instanter. The same day, appellee also filed its renewed motion for summary judgment instanter. Appellant did not object to the motion for leave or file a memorandum contra the motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion for leave on July 26, 2012, and granted the renewed motion for summary judgment on August 14, 2012.

{¶ 4} On September 5, 2012, appellant filed a memorandum in opposition to the renewed motion for summary judgment and a motion to vacate judgment. In her memorandum, appellant argued that numerous issues of material fact remained, including that the alleged amount owed was not correct. She did not provide an accompanying affidavit averring to the truth of these statements. In the motion to vacate, appellant argued, inter alia, that she was not served with the motion for summary judgment and that the alleged amount owed was not correct. Appellee opposed appellant's motion to vacate.

{¶ 5} On December 13, 2012, the trial court denied appellant's motion to vacate judgment noting that (1) service was proper, and (2) appellant did not provide any evidence to support her argument that she did not owe the amount alleged in the complaint. Appellant appeals from the trial court's December 13, 2012 decision.

{¶ 6} In her brief, appellant did not set forth any assignments of error nor any statement of issues. Rather, she set forth the following arguments:

1) Plaintiff has failed to state a claim.
2) Plaintiffs claims are barred as the alleged amount is fraudulent.
3) Summary Judgment was improperly awarded to Plaintiff, and must be vacated for ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.