Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1611-CC-2570 | June 14, 2017 Page 1 of 4 

### MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

A PPELLANT P RO S E Julianne Johnson Plainfield, Indiana A TTORNEYS FOR A PPELLEE Ross J. Lerch Fenton & McGarvey Law Firm, P.S.C. Louisville, Kentucky


### IN THE 

# COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Julianne Johnson, A

ppellan t -Defendant,

v. 

### Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, A

ppelle e -Plaintiff June 14, 2017 Court of Appeals Case No. 32A05-1611-CC-2570 Appeal from the Hendricks Superior CourtThe Honorable Stephenie LeMayLuken, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 32D05-1603-CC-280

Vaidik, Chief Judge.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1611-CC-2570 | June 14, 2017 Page 2 of 4 

# Case Summary

[1] Julianne Johnson appeals the trial court’ s grant of summary judgment in favor of Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. Finding no error, we affirm. 

# Facts and Procedural History

[2] In February 2013 Johnson opened a credit-card account with Synchrony Bank. The card was labeled as an Amazon.com credit card. Johnson used the credit card and received multiple statements from Synchrony Bank. The account statement with a closing date of Septem ber 26, 2014, showed that $50 had been paid toward Johnson’s ou tstanding balance. The account statement with a closing date of November 27, 2014, sh owed that Johnson had an outstanding balance of $738.02. One month later, Synchrony Bank sold Johnson’s debt to Portfolio.

[3] Portfolio filed suit against Johnson in Ma rch 2016 for the outstanding balance. In July, Portfolio sent Johnson discov ery requests, includ ing requests for admission pursuant to Indiana Trial Ru le 36(A). The requ ests for admission included statements that the underlying debt was John son’s, that the account statements sent by Synchrony Bank to Johnson were authen tic, and that the outstanding balance was owed to Por tfolio. Appellee’s App. pp. 23-25. Johnson did not respond, so the matters set fort h were deemed admitted pursuant to Trial Rule 36(A). Furtherm ore, Johnson did not seek to withdrawCourt of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1611-CC-2570 | June 14, 2017 Page 3 of 4 her admissions under subsection (B) of the rule. Portfolio then moved for summary judgment, which th e trial court granted.

[4] Johnson now appeals.


# Discussion and Decision

[5] We review the trial court’s summary judgment order de novo. Hughley v. State , 15 N.E.3d 1000, 1003 (Ind. 2014). Summary judgment is appropriate if there is “no genuine issue of material fact and th e moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Ind. Trial Rule 56( C). The moving party bears the burden to make a prima facie showing that thes e two requirements have been met. Interstate Cold Storage, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp. , 720 N.E.2d 727, 729 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied . If the moving party establishes its prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to “set forth specifically designated facts show ing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id

.
[6] Indiana Trial Rule 36 permits parties to serve one another with requests for admission. If a party does not respond to a request for admiss ion, that matter is deemed admitted. “However, a party who made admissions by failing to respond may move to withdraw those admi ssions pursuant to [Trial Rule] 36.” Larson v. Karagan , 979 N.E.2d 655, 660 (Ind. Ct . App. 2012). “Any matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.” Ind. Trial Rule 36(B).Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1611-CC-2570 | June 14, 2017 Page 4 of 4 [7] Johnson challenges the authen ticity of the billing statements and the assignment of the outstanding balance to Portfolio. In its requests for admission, Portfolio specifically asked about the authentici ty of the billing statements and the assignment of the debt to Portfolio. Johnson did not answer the requests, and she never asked the court to withdraw her admissions. The issues Johnson raises were conclusively es tablished when she failed to respond to Portfolio’s requests for admission and did not as k the trial court to withdraw her admissions. The trial cour t properly granted summary judgment in favor of Portfolio. 1

[8] Affirmed. Bailey, J., and Robb, J., concur.

1 Johnson also challenges the suffici ency of an affidavit Portfolio subm itted regarding its ownership of the debt. We do not address this argument as Johnson admitted Portfolio’s ownershi p of the debt when she failed to answer the requests for admission. See Appellee’s App. pp. 23-25 (“Request No. 11: That all charges, interest, fees, and penalties assessed to the a ccount are due and payable to Plaintiff. Request No. 12: That Defendant is responsible to Plaintiff for the principal amount of $738.02 plus court costs.”).