Discover Bank v. Bailey

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Ohio » 10th District Court of Appeals » 2013 » Discover Bank v. Bailey

State: Ohio

Court: Ohio Southern District Court

Docket No: 2013-Ohio-1809

Case Date: 05/02/2013

Plaintiff: Discover Bank

Defendant: Bailey

Preview:[Cite as Discover Bank v. Bailey, 2013-Ohio-1809.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Discover Bank,                                                                                    :
Plaintiff-Appellee,                                                                               :
v.                                                                                                :    No. 12AP-1001
(C.P.C. No. 12 CVH 56956)
Jovita Bailey,                                                                                    :
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
Defendant-Appellant.                                                                              :
D  E  C  I  S  I  O  N
Rendered on May 2, 2013
Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co. L.P.A., and Matthew G. Burg,
for appellee.
Jovita Bailey, pro se.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
TYACK, J.
{¶ 1}  Jovita Bailey is appealing from the judgment rendered against her as a
result  of  her  credit  card  debt  to  Discover  Bank.    She  assigns  two  errors  for  our
consideration:
I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR
AS A MATTER OF LAW IN ITS JUDGMENT ENTRY OF
NOVEMBER                                                                                          7,   2012  GRANTING  DISCOVER  BANK'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN
EGREGIOUSLY   AND   FLAGRANTLY   IGNORING   THE
"ORIGINAL CASE SCHEDULE" TO THE PREJUDICE OF

No.                                                                                                12AP-1001   2
THE  DEFENDANT-APPELLANT  THEREBY  DEPRIVING
HER THE FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND SUBSTANTIAL
JUSTICE ASSURED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF
THE  FIFTH  AND  FOURTEENTH  AMENDMENTS  TO
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.
{¶ 2}  As indicated above, the judgment against Jovita Bailey resulted from the
granting of a motion for summary judgment.   Her primary assertion, which was raised
after judgment had been granted and a garnishment pursued, was that Discover Bank had
not complied with the requirements of Ohio law for a bank chartered in another state to
do business in Ohio.  Bailey raised this issue too late to have it considered in the trial court
before judgment was granted.   We cannot fault the trial court for failing to consider an
issue not raised.
{¶ 3}  The first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 4}  The second assignment of error argues that the trial court erred in granting
summary judgment before the deadline for discovery had passed.  The Ohio Rules of Civil
Procedure have provisions that allow a party who is defending against a motion for
summary  judgment  to  delay  a  ruling  on  the  motion  for  summary  judgment  until
additional discovery can be completed.  See Civ.R. 56(F).  Bailey did not use Civ.R. 56(F).
{¶ 5}  Bailey claims she was blindsided by the trial court's ruling.    Her claim
apparently results from her lack of knowledge of the local rules for the court of common
pleas for Franklin County.   Those rules set forth the time schedule to be applied by the
trial court for ruling on motions for summary judgment.  The trial court judge did not err
in applying the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedures and the local rules.
{¶ 6}  The second assignment of error is overruled.

No.                                                                           12AP-1001   3
{¶ 7}  Both assignments of error having been overruled, the judgment of the
Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
DORRIAN and McCORMAC, JJ., concur.
McCORMAC,  J.,  retired,  formerly  of  the  Tenth  Appellate
District, assigned to active duty under the authority of Ohio
Constitution, Article IV, Section 6(C).

Download 12ap-1001.pdf