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.

Midland Funding LLC v. Biehl

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District

September 23, 2013

MIDLAND FUNDING LLC Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
JEFFREY BIEHL Defendant-Appellant

Civil Appeal from the Massillon Municipal Court, Case No. 2012 CVF 442

For Plaintiff-Appellee MARK C. BRNCIK JAMES Y. OH

For Defendant-Appellant W. LOVE II

Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, P. J. Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

OPINION

Wise, J.

(¶1} Appellant Jeffery Biehl, aka Jeffrey Biehl, appeals the decision of the Massillon Municipal Court, Stark County, which granted a monetary judgment in favor of Appellee Midland Funding, LLC in a collection action initiated by appellee. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.

(¶2} On February 21, 2012, Appellee Midland Funding LLC, holding itself out as the assignee of Appellant Jeffrey Biehl's credit card account with HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., filed a "complaint for money" in the trial court seeking an amount due of $1, 351.02, plus interest and costs, relating to charges on HSBC card account xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-4894.

(¶3} On April 13, 2012, appellant filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the complaint did not satisfy the requirements of Civ.R. 10 because no contract evincing an assignment from HSBC to Appellee Midland was attached to the complaint and because no contract between HSBC and appellant was attached to the complaint. Appellee filed a response to appellant's motion on April 23, 2012.

(¶4} The trial court denied appellant's motion to dismiss on October 26, 2012.

(¶5} On November 13, 2012, appellant filed an answer, denying all allegations pled in the complaint and again claiming that the complaint did not comply with Civ.R. 10.

(¶6} On November 14, 2012, appellee filed a motion for summary judgment.

(¶7} On November 26, 2012, appellant filed a combined brief in opposition to summary judgment and his own motion for summary judgment. Appellant therein again argued that Appellee Midland failed to satisfy the requirements of Ohio Civ.R. 10 and that appellee is not the owner of the account. Appellant submitted an affidavit in which he denied any use of a credit card issued by HSBC Nevada N.A. and stated that he had not been furnished with a copy of his original contract with HSBC or a copy of the assignment of his account from HSBC to appellee. Appellee Midland filed a brief in opposition to appellant's motion for summary judgment on November 30, 2012.

(¶8} On January 9, 2013, according to the court's docket, appellant was granted fifteen days to respond to appellee's motion for summary judgment, despite appellant's aforesaid filing on November 26, 2012. Appellant did not file any further response.

(¶9} On January 25, 2013, appellee's motion for summary judgment was granted, and appellee was awarded $1, 351.02, ...


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.