Equable Ascent Fin., L.L.C. v. Ybarra

Citation: 2013 Ohio 4283Docket: 12CA010290, 12CA010296

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; September 30, 2013; Ohio; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Phillip Ybarra appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Equable Ascent Financial, which claimed Ybarra owed $6,632.62 on a credit card account. Ybarra sought to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Equable Ascent acted as a collection agency and failed to comply with R.C. 1319.12. The trial court denied his motion and granted summary judgment to Equable Ascent, leading to Ybarra’s appeal with two assignments of error. 

In his first assignment, Ybarra contended that the trial court erred by not granting his summary judgment motion and instead awarding it to Equable Ascent, citing failure to comply with R.C. 1319.12. The appellate court reviewed the summary judgment de novo, emphasizing that the moving party must show no genuine issues of material fact exist, and any doubt should favor the non-moving party. 

Ybarra argued Equable Ascent qualifies as a collection agency under R.C. 1319.12(A)(1), which necessitates compliance with specific regulations. Equable Ascent countered it owned the account and was not acting as a collection agency. The law differentiates between a collection agency, which collects debts for others, and a purchaser of debt, which collects on its own behalf. The court noted a genuine dispute exists regarding whether Equable Ascent had purchased the account in question, indicating that the matter is not resolved.

Equable Ascent claimed ownership of an account in its motion for summary judgment, supported by an affidavit from Myrna Favela, a Bill of Sale for 31,451 accounts from Chase Bank to Hilco Receivables, a merger document showing Hilco's transition into Equable Ascent, and an account statement for Mr. Ybarra. Favela asserted that the documents were accurate; however, the Bill of Sale did not reference Mr. Ybarra's account specifically, and the accompanying 'Exhibit 1' was not included in the case record. Additionally, the account statement did not mention Equable Ascent or Hilco, suggesting it was generated by Chase and not indicating that Equable Ascent was acting on its own behalf. Consequently, the evidence did not clearly establish Equable Ascent as the account owner, creating a factual dispute about its status, and ultimately, Equable Ascent did not meet the burden for summary judgment.

Mr. Ybarra contended he deserved summary judgment because Equable Ascent was a collection agency, but he did not provide evidence to support this. The evidence viewed favorably for Equable Ascent did not confirm its status as a collection agency, leading to Ybarra's failure to secure summary judgment for himself.

Ybarra's first assignment of error was partially sustained, recognizing the trial court's error in granting summary judgment to Equable Ascent, but his claim for his own summary judgment was overruled. In his second assignment of error, Ybarra argued that his motion to dismiss should have been granted due to Equable Ascent's failure to maintain a business presence in Ohio, citing a previous ruling that deemed Equable Ascent a collection agency. His argument appeared to invoke res judicata, although it lacked clarity. The trial court's decision on motions to dismiss is reviewed de novo, requiring that a complaint must demonstrate the ability to prove facts supporting the claim to survive dismissal.

Mr. Ybarra's motion to dismiss was based on a judgment from a separate case but was deemed improper as it required the trial court to evaluate evidence outside the complaint, contrary to legal standards established in Warren v. Estate of Durham. Consequently, the trial court correctly denied the motion. Mr. Ybarra's second assignment of error was rejected. The judgment of the Avon Municipal Court was partially affirmed and partially reversed, with the case remanded for further proceedings. A special mandate was issued to the Avon Lake Municipal Court to enforce this judgment, and a certified copy of the journal entry serves as the mandate. The judgment will be filed and the review period will commence upon filing. The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is tasked with notifying the parties of this judgment. Costs are to be shared equally between both parties.