|
|
did he get back to you whychat
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Credit Forum Index ]
Posted by scott (65.25.99.145) on March 26, 2003 at 20:41:34:
I was reading that case law that orangedog posted. I saw months ago that you asked him for info on where he got it. did he ever get back to you. I looked on pacer but could not find it. I did pull up a case that did not explain much but gave me a big laugh. Someone sued asset. Asset never showed so they got a default judgement that totaled around 20k. Asset came back and tried to get the default tossed so they were denied. Well, asset did not want to pay up so the peeople garnished assets bank account. Hahahahaha. anyway, I still never got a response. Keep in mind I am a legal idiot or something. Can you critique the case below. Which lines prove the sol in ohio. I could use all the help you can get. thanks ==========================
PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] T.C. Case No. 98-CVF-2054.
"Initially, we reject Creditrust's assertion that it did not need to comply with the requirements of Civ.R. 10(D) nor prove the elements of an action on account [*9] because its claim was merely one for breach of contract. The relationship between Creditrust's predecessor in interest, Chevy Chase Savings Bank, and Richard was quintessentially one of account creditor and account debtor. The bank and Richard entered into an agreement whereby the bank would extend a line of credit to Richard, and he, in return, would repay the charges plus interest. The contractual relationship covered a series of transactions for which a balance would arise.
Furthermore, the purpose behind the requirement of Civ.R. 10(D) that a copy of the account be attached to the complaint is to allow the balance to be calculated in an accurate and reliable manner. If Creditrust's action against Richard was considered merely a breach of contract action and not an action on an account, Creditrust's measure of damages would, nevertheless, be the unpaid balance. Consequently, a party in Creditrust's position should not be permitted to evade the requirements of Civ.R. 10(D) by declaring that its claim is merely one for breach of contract, rather than on an account. Creditrust argues, in the alternative, that it complied with Civ.R. 10(D) and otherwise established the [*10] necessary elements of an action on an account by introducing into evidence copies of Richard's monthly statements from January, 1992, to the date of the charge-off in January, 1993, and by attaching a copy of the "Customer Account Statement" to its complaint, which: (1) contains the name of the party charged with the debt (Richard); (2) has a beginning balance that can "qualify as an account stated," since it is a "provable sum established by the monthly statements introduced into evidence"; (3) "lists items representing charges, debits and credits"; and (4) "contains a summary which permits calculation of the balance claimed to be due and owing."
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
|
