Mariner Fin., L.L.C. v. Childs

Citation: 2021 Ohio 3935Docket: 21AP-19

Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; November 4, 2021; Ohio; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Tawan R. Childs appeals a judgment from the Franklin County Municipal Court that granted summary judgment in favor of Mariner Finance, LLC, for Childs' failure to repay a loan of $3,228.69 taken on December 21, 2017, at an annual interest rate of 24.99%, repayable over 40 months. Mariner Finance filed a complaint in August 2019 after Childs defaulted on the loan. In response, Childs filed a motion to dismiss and later moved for default judgment while also referencing an arbitration clause in the loan agreement. The trial court held proceedings in abeyance to allow Childs to initiate arbitration, but by December 2020, he had not done so. The court then awarded Mariner Finance $2,414.51, plus late charges and interest. 

Childs asserts four assignments of error, claiming the trial court erred by: (1) not conducting adequate hearings regarding his motions; (2) denying his motion to dismiss and default judgment; (3) improperly granting summary judgment; and (4) failing to address his consumer protection defense. The appellate court found Childs' first assignment of error regarding due process was not well-taken.

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment ensures that no person is deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, which is understood as a requirement for "fundamental fairness." Courts mandate that due process includes both notice and the opportunity to be heard. Childs argued he was denied due process because no evidentiary hearing was held on his motions; however, he was not entitled to such a hearing under Ohio Civil Rule 56 concerning summary judgment motions, nor under Rule 12(B)(6) for motions to dismiss. The court clarified that these rules allow for decisions based on submitted memoranda and evidence without an evidentiary hearing. Childs' motion for default judgment under Rule 55(A) was also deemed procedurally improper. Consequently, his claim of due process violation was rejected.

In his second assignment of error, Childs contended the trial court erred by implicitly denying his motions to dismiss and for default judgment when granting Mariner Finance's summary judgment. The court noted that a trial court's failure to explicitly rule on pending motions results in an implicit denial. The motions were found to lack merit; Mariner Finance's complaint alleged Childs failed to repay a loan, which constitutes a valid claim for relief under Rule 12(B)(6). Thus, the court affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding Childs' motions.

Childs contended that the trial court should have granted his motion against Mariner Finance due to their failure to respond; however, the court found this irrelevant as civil rules do not mandate a plaintiff's response to a motion under Civ. R. 12(B)(6). Childs' motion for default judgment under Civ.R. 55(A) was deemed procedurally improper since Mariner Finance was the initiating party, and Childs had not filed a counterclaim. The court overruled Childs' second assignment of error.

Regarding the third assignment of error, Childs claimed the court erred in granting summary judgment to Mariner Finance. The appellate court reviewed this de novo and concluded that summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine material facts in dispute, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and the evidence is viewed in favor of the nonmoving party. Mariner Finance proved it held the note, that Childs executed it, and that it was in default. Childs failed to provide evidence disputing Mariner Finance's claims or demonstrating any genuine issues for trial. His allegations of predatory lending and misleading practices were unsupported by evidence. Furthermore, the arbitration clause in the agreement did not prevent Mariner Finance from filing a civil action, and the court did not require Childs to pay arbitration costs, which were the responsibility of Mariner Finance. Thus, the summary judgment was upheld.

In the fourth assignment of error, Childs argued the court erred by not addressing his defense of unlawful predatory lending and fraud. The court implicitly rejected this defense when granting summary judgment, as Childs did not provide evidence to substantiate his claims. All of Childs' assignments of error were overruled, and the judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court was affirmed.