Background
Capital One sued Anthony D. Legend in Montgomery County Common Pleas Court to recover $10,198.45 allegedly owed on a credit-card account, plus postjudgment interest at 8% annually. After withdrawing an earlier summary-judgment motion, Capital One filed a new motion supported by an affidavit from its litigation support coordinator, account statements, and a cardmember agreement.
Legend moved to strike the affidavit and opposed summary judgment, arguing that the affiant lacked the personal knowledge required by Ohio Civil Rule 56. The trial court denied his motion to strike, found the materials admissible for summary-judgment purposes, and entered judgment for Capital One. Legend appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed. Reviewing the summary judgment de novo, the court held that the affidavit was competent evidence under Civ.R. 56. The coordinator stated that she had personal knowledge and had reviewed Capital One’s regularly maintained account records; she also described how those records were created and updated at or near the underlying transactions.
The authenticated exhibits established that Legend held the account, owed an outstanding balance of $10,198.45, and defaulted on required payments. Once Capital One met its initial burden, Legend had to offer evidence creating a genuine factual dispute. He supplied none, instead repeating his objections to the affidavit.
Key Takeaways
- A creditor may support summary judgment with an employee affidavit based on personal knowledge and review of regularly kept business records.
- Documents outside Civ.R. 56(C)’s listed materials may be considered when properly authenticated and incorporated through an affidavit.
- After the movant presents competent evidence, the opposing party must submit rebuttal evidence—not merely repeat legal objections.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that a properly framed records-custodian or servicing-employee affidavit can establish a credit-card account, balance, and default at the summary-judgment stage. It also underscores the reciprocal evidentiary burden on debt defendants: challenging the creditor’s proof alone will not avoid judgment when no contrary evidence is submitted.