Court of Appeals of Ohio, Seventh District, Belmont
Appeal from the Court of Belmont County, Western Division of
Belmont County, Ohio Case No. 17CVF00530W
Yale Levy and Atty. Kathleen Smith, Levy & Associates,
LLC., for Plaintiff-Appellee and
Koher, PRO SE, for Defendant-Appellant.
BEFORE: Gene Donofrio, Cheryl L. Waite, David A.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Defendant-appellant, Aaron Koher, appeals the Belmont County
Court, Western Division's judgment awarding summary
judgment on a breach of contract claim in favor of
plaintiff-appellee, Credit Acceptance Corporation.
On January 8, 2016, appellant purchased a 2006 Ford F150
truck with Ohio Motor Group, LLC. Appellant signed a retail
installment contract with Ohio Motor Group where he agreed to
pay a total of $9, 014.30 consisting of a down payment of
$800.00 and 45 monthly payments of $182.54. In the contract,
Ohio Motor Group assigned its interest to appellee.
According to appellant, two days after he purchased the
truck, it became completely inoperable. Appellant argues that
the truck was defective and refused to make any payments on
the contract. At some point, the truck was repossessed due to
appellant's failure to make payments on the contract. On
September 22, 2016, appellee sent appellant a notice that the
truck was repossessed due to appellant's failure to make
On October 27, 2016, appellee sent appellant a notice to sell
the truck at a public sale via certified mail. On November
28, 2016, appellee sent appellant a notice of disposition of
repossessed property. The notice of disposition of
repossessed property stated appellant owed a deficiency
balance of $4, 865.31 on the truck. Appellant made no
payments on the deficiency balance.
On December 22, 2017, appellee filed this action raising a
sole breach of contract claim and sought the deficiency
balance plus interest from September 21, 2016. Appellee
attached to its complaint: an affidavit from one of its
employees attesting to the amount owed, appellant's
payment history report, a copy of the retail installment
contract, a copy of the notice of repossession, a copy of the
notice to sell property, and a copy of the notice of
disposition of repossessed property. Appellant was served
notice of this action by certified mail.
On January 19, 2018, appellant filed what was construed to be
an answer. While the answer did not admit or deny the
specific allegations in the complaint, appellant generally
indicated that he disputed all of appellee's allegations.
The answer also argued that the truck began having problems
approximately one hour after leaving Ohio Motor Group.
Appellant accused Ohio Motor Group of fixing the vehicle to
work for only a short period of time in order to sell the
On February 12, 2018, appellee sent appellant its first set
of interrogatories, requests for production of documents, and
requests for admission. Appellee filed a notice of service of
these discovery requests on February 14, 2018.
On April 12, 2018, appellee filed a motion for summary
judgment. Appellee argued that it was entitled to summary
judgment because appellant failed to respond to the requests
for admission and the requests were admitted by default. With
the requests for admission now admitted by default, appellee
argued that there was no genuine issue of material fact
regarding its breach of contract claim. Appellee attached to
its motion a copy of its requests for admission propounded to
appellant as well as the exhibits that were attached to the
On April 27, 2018, appellant filed two separate motions. The
first was a "notice to bring suit." The second was
styled as an opposition to summary judgment. In the
opposition to summary judgment, appellant generally argued
that the facts of the action were in dispute. Appellant also
argued that he was not properly served notice of this action.
Appellant attached his responses to ...