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. 

APPELLANT PRO SE

Julianne Johnson 

Plainfield, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Ross J. Lerch 

Fenton & McGarvey Law Firm, 

P.S.C. 

Louisville, Kentucky 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA 

Julianne Johnson, 

Appellant-Defendant, 

v. 

Portfolio Recovery Associates, 

LLC, 

Appellee-Plaintiff 

June 14, 2017 

Court of Appeals Case No. 

32A05-1611-CC-2570 

Appeal from the Hendricks 

Superior Court 

The 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 September 26, 2014, showed that $50 had been 

paid toward Johnson’s outstanding balance. The account statement with a 

closing date of November 27, 2014, showed 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 March 2016 for the outstanding balance. 

In July, Portfolio sent Johnson discovery requests, including requests for 

admission pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 36(A). The requests for admission 

included statements that the underlying debt was Johnson’s, that the account 

statements sent by Synchrony Bank to Johnson were authentic, and that the 

outstanding balance was owed to Portfolio. Appellee’s App. pp. 23-25. 

Johnson did not respond, so the matters set forth were deemed admitted 

pursuant to Trial Rule 36(A). Furthermore, Johnson did not seek to withdraw 
Court 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 the 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 the 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 these 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 showing 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 admission, that matter is 

deemed admitted. “However, a party who made admissions by failing to 

respond may move to withdraw those admissions 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 authenticity of the billing statements and the assignment 

of the outstanding balance to Portfolio. In its requests for admission, Portfolio 

specifically asked about the authenticity 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 established when she failed to respond to Portfolio’s 

requests for admission and did not ask the trial court to withdraw her 

admissions. The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of 

Portfolio.1

[8] Affirmed. 

Bailey, J., and Robb, J., concur. 

 

1

 Johnson also challenges the sufficiency of an affidavit Portfolio submitted regarding its ownership of the 

debt. We do not address this argument as Johnson admitted Portfolio’s ownership 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 account 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.”).