Background
Absolute Resolutions Investments, LLC, a debt collector, sued Justin Marshall to recover $2,435.01 on a defaulted credit card account originally issued by U.S. Bank National Association. The complaint alleged that Absolute Resolutions acquired Marshall’s account through an assignment from U.S. Bank, attaching a March 2020 bank statement in support.
Marshall moved to dismiss, arguing that Absolute Resolutions failed to attach documentation of the alleged assignment. Alternatively, he moved for a more definite statement under Civ.R. 12(E). The trial court granted the motion for a more definite statement and ordered Absolute Resolutions to produce documentation of the assignment and any chain-of-title documentation. In response, Absolute Resolutions filed a supplemental statement with an asset schedule identifying Marshall’s account among the purchased accounts and supporting documentation. Absolute Resolutions then moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Marshall appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The First District affirmed. The court held that the asset schedule produced in response to the court’s order, combined with the summary-judgment evidence — including account statements, the assignment agreement, and account-level documentation — established the absence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding the validity of the assignment of Marshall’s account to Absolute Resolutions. Marshall failed to produce evidence creating a genuine dispute.
The court rejected Marshall’s argument that Absolute Resolutions failed to follow binding precedent requiring specific chain-of-title documentation. The court noted that while the initial complaint may have been lacking in assignment documentation, Absolute Resolutions cured the deficiency by complying with the court’s order for a more definite statement and providing the asset schedule that specifically identified Marshall’s account.
Key Takeaways
- A debt collector can establish standing to sue on an assigned account by producing an asset schedule identifying the specific account, even if the original complaint lacked assignment documentation.
- Civ.R. 12(E) motions for a more definite statement can be an effective tool for defendants to compel debt collectors to produce chain-of-title evidence early in the case.
- Once a debt collector produces sufficient chain-of-title documentation, the burden shifts to the defendant to create a genuine issue of material fact to survive summary judgment.
Why It Matters
This decision provides practical guidance for both debt-collection plaintiffs and consumer-defense practitioners in Ohio. It confirms that a Civ.R. 12(E) motion can force early production of assignment documentation, but also that a debt collector who complies with such an order can establish standing for summary judgment purposes. Defense counsel in debt-collection cases should be prepared to challenge the specificity and reliability of asset schedules and assignment agreements at the summary-judgment stage, rather than relying solely on the absence of documentation at the complaint stage.