Midland Funding, L.L.C. v. Gilley ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Midland Funding, L.L.C. v. Gilley, 2019-Ohio-2129.]
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    MONTGOMERY COUNTY
    MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC                                 :
    :
    Plaintiff-Appellee                           :        Appellate Case No. 28180
    :
    v.                                                   :        Trial Court Case No. 2018-CV-4009
    :
    KIMBERLY GILLEY                                      :        (Civil Appeal from
    :         Common Pleas Court)
    Defendant-Appellant                          :
    :
    ...........
    OPINION
    Rendered on the 31st day of May, 2019.
    ...........
    DOUGLAS M. DAHMER, Atty. Reg. No. 0062607, 3705 Marlane Drive, Grove City, Ohio
    43123
    Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
    KIMBERLY GILLEY, 1664 Ashworth Drive, Vandalia, Ohio 45377
    Defendant-Appellant, Pro Se
    .............
    HALL, J.
    -2-
    {¶ 1} Kimberly Gilley appeals pro se from a default judgment entered against her
    on appellee Midland Funding’s complaint to recover money owed on a credit-card
    account.
    {¶ 2} Although Gilley’s appellate brief lacks assignments of error as required by
    App.R. 16(A)(3), she raises arguments addressing Midland Funding’s right to payment
    and her obligations under the credit agreement. Nowhere in her brief, however, does
    Gilley dispute being served with Midland Funding’s complaint or failing to file a responsive
    pleading.
    {¶ 3} The record reflects that Midland Funding filed a complaint against Gilley on
    August 27, 2018. The complaint alleged that Midland Funding owned her credit-card
    account, that she owed $6,571.25 on the account, and that she had failed to pay the
    balance despite a demand for payment. (Doc. #1.) Attached to the complaint were an
    affidavit and assorted documents concerning Gilley’s account being written off and sold
    to Midland Funding. Gilley was served with the complaint. (Doc. #8.) After she failed to
    file a timely answer or otherwise respond, the trial court entered a notice of default. (Doc.
    #9.) Midland Funding then filed a motion for default judgment. (Doc. #10.) The motion
    included an affidavit from a “Legal Specialist” employed by the servicer of Gilley’s
    account. The affidavit stated that on June 18, 2018, Gilley owed a balance of $6,571.25
    and that Midland Funding owned the account. On October 12, 2018, the trial court entered
    a default judgment against Gilley in the foregoing amount plus statutory interest and court
    costs. (Doc. #12.) Gilley timely appealed.
    {¶ 4} Under Civ.R. 55, a default judgment may be entered “[w]hen a party against
    whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend.”
    -3-
    Civ.R. 55(A); see also Lykins v. Miami Valley Hosp., 
    157 Ohio App. 3d 291
    , 2004-Ohio-
    2732, 
    811 N.E.2d 124
    , ¶ 92 (2d Dist.) (“Civ.R. 55(A) provides that default judgment may
    be awarded when a defendant fails to make an appearance by filing an answer or
    otherwise defending an action.”). A trial court’s entry of default judgment is reviewed for
    an abuse of discretion. Wells Fargo Fin. Natl. Bank v. Douglas, 2d Dist. Montgomery No.
    24349, 2011-Ohio-3739, ¶ 17.
    {¶ 5} In her appellate brief, Gilley alleges a history of billing disputes concerning
    her account. She contends, among other things, that she was charged interest
    prematurely in violation of an “18 months same-as-cash” provision. She also asserts that
    she misunderstood the legal papers served on her and thought she was supposed to
    respond to Midland Funding. According to Gilley, she unsuccessfully attempted to obtain
    supporting documentation from Midland Funding rather than filing an answer to the
    complaint. In conducting appellate review, however, we are limited to the record before
    the trial court when it rendered judgment. U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Shipp, 2d Dist. Montgomery
    No. 25379, 2013-Ohio-2473, ¶ 12. Moreover, Gilley’s arguments do not negate the fact
    that she failed to plead or otherwise defend after being served with Midland Funding’s
    complaint. That being so, we see no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s entry of a
    default judgment against her.
    {¶ 6} The judgment of the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
    .............
    FROELICH, J. and TUCKER, J., concur.
    -4-
    Copies sent to:
    Douglas M. Dahmer
    Kimberly Gilley
    Hon. Mary L. Wiseman
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 28180

Judges: Hall

Filed Date: 5/31/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 5/31/2019