Home |  Contact |  Site Map

 
 

Search E-Alerts






Resources

Service Description
Services
Attorney Directory
 

   Creditor Rights & Bankruptcy
 
Creditor Rights & Bankruptcy E-Alerts


June 2, 2008

Ohio's 10th Appellate District Holds That an Affidavit Attached to a Complaint Did Not Satisfy the Requirements of Civil Rule 10(D)(1) for a Claim on an Account  

In Hudson & Keyse, LLC v. Carson (10th App. Dist., May 29, 2008), No. 07AP-936, the Tenth Appellate District reversed the trial court's denial of a motion for more definite statement filed under Civil Rule 10(D).  In the case, plaintiff Hudson & Keyse, LLC sued Kenneth Carson as assignee of a credit card account.  The complaint included claims for 1) failure to pay on an account, 2) quantum meruit, 3) unjust enrichment, and breach of contract.  The complaint attached an affidavit from plaintiff setting forth the amount due, but did not reference the account number and did not attach account statements.  In response, Mr. Carson filed a number of motions to dismiss and for more definite statement arguing in relevant part that plaintiff should have been required to attach a copy of the account pursuant to Civil Rule 10(D)(1).   

The trial court denied each of defendant's various motions and granted summary judgment to plaintiff on its claim on an account.  On appeal, the Tenth Appellate District acknowledged that Civil Rule 10(D)(1) can be satisfied by attaching documents that do not strictly meet the definition of a statement of account.  However, the Court found that the affidavit attached to plaintiff's complaint failed to reference the account number of the account at issue, or attach any documents related to the account such as monthly statements or the credit card agreement.  As such, the Court held that plaintiff failed to place defendant on notice of the account upon which plaintiff's claims were based pursuant to Civil Rule 10(D)(1).  Based on this holding, the Court found that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for more definite statement and remanded the case with instructions for plaintiff to file an amended complaint that complies with Civil Rule 10(D)(1).  The decision was authored by Judge Sadler, with Judges Petree and T. Bryant concurring.


This E-alert was prepared by Justin W. Ristau. Please contact any member of the Bricker & Eckler Creditor Rights & Bankruptcy group for more information. 

 

Subscribe to E-Alerts

Sign up to receive Creditor & Bankruptcy E-Alerts
Subscribe
 


Most Recent E-Alerts

November 19, 2008
A New Report is Released by Policy Matters Ohio Analyzing Data on Sheriff Sales in Ohio

October 27, 2008
FTC Announces Delay in Enforcement of Red Flag Rules

September 19, 2008
Sixth Circuit Holds That State Court Judgments That Modify a Discharge Order are Void ab Initio

August 27, 2008
Sixth Circuit Holds Ohio Mortgage Broker Act Licensing and Registration Requirements Preempted by Federal Law

August 12, 2008
New Federal Reserve Rules With Goal to Protect Borrowers From Abusive Lending

Index to all E-Alerts



 

 

Copyright 2005-2008, Bricker & Eckler LLP, all rights reserved.  Please read our Privacy Notice.
The words Bricker & Eckler and its logo are registered trademarks of Bricker & Eckler LLP