CASHLAND FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. Appellee
AMBER L. HOYT Appellant
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 08CV156396
RONALD I. FREDERICK, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
DREW H. CAMPBELL and ANTHONY M. SHARETT, Attorneys at Law, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
(¶1} Appellant, Amber L. Hoyt, appeals from the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.
(¶2} On October 22, 2007, Appellee, Cashland Financial Services, Inc., loaned Hoyt $500.00. The loan contract signed by Hoyt set forth a "Payment Schedule" that consisted of one payment in the amount of $575.00, which was due on November 5, 2007. On April 22, 2008, Cashland filed a complaint against Hoyt alleging that she breached the contract when she paid only $40.00 of the total amount due under the Payment Schedule. It sought judgment against Hoyt in the amount of $577.86, 5 percent interest per month "or fraction thereof on the principal loan balance of $500.00, and 8 percent interest per annum on the remaining sum due of $77.86.
(¶3} Hoyt filed an answer that denied the allegations in the complaint, raised several affirmative defenses and asserted a counterclaim against Cashland. The parties engaged in extensive motion practice, during which the trial court permitted Hoyt to file a third amended counterclaim against Cashland that alleged: (1) breach of contract; (2) violations of the Consumer Sales Practices Act; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) "[m]oney [h]ad and [r]eceived" and (5) declaratory judgment. Hoyt brought the amended counterclaim as a class action on "behalf of herself and a class of all other persons similarly situated."
(¶4} On March 5, 2012, Cashland filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings that sought dismissal of Hoyt's third amended counterclaim. The trial court granted Cashland's motion on May 11, 2012, and found that Hoyt failed to plead allegations sufficient for it to find that Cashland had breached its contract with her or that there was a violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. The court further found that Hoyt's unjust enrichment and money had and received claims were barred because a valid contract existed between the parties and that Hoyt's request for declaratory judgment failed due to the failure of her other claims. Thereafter, Cashland dismissed its complaint against Hoyt without prejudice.
(¶5} Hoyt filed a timely appeal of the trial court judgment that granted Cashland's motion for judgment on the pleadings, and raises three assignments of error for this Court's review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
CASHLAND BREACHED ITS CONTRACT WITH MS. HOYT BY CHARGING INTEREST OF MORE THAN TWICE WHAT THE CONTRACT ALLOWS.
(¶6} Hoyt argues that the trial court erred in granting judgment in favor of Cashland on her breach of contract ...