[Cite as PCA Acquisitions L.L.C. v. Parson, 2020-Ohio-3218.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

HIGHLAND COUNTY 

PCA ACQUISITIONS L.L.C., : 

 : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 19CA15 

 : 

 vs. : 

 : 

ROBERT J. PARSON, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT 

 : ENTRY 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

APPEARANCES: 

Robert J. Parson, Hillsboro, Ohio, Appellant Pro Se. 

Yale R. Levy, Kathleen M. Smith, Levy & Associates, LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for 

Appellee. 

 

Smith, P.J. 

{¶1} Robert J. Parson (“Appellant”) appeals the June 25, 2019 entry of the 

Hillsboro Municipal Court, which granted PCA Acquisitions, L.L.C.’s 

(“Appellee’s”) motion for summary judgment, to which Appellant did not respond. 

Having reviewed the record, we find no merit to Appellant’s arguments. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. 

FACTS 

{¶2} On November 26, 2018, Appellee filed a complaint in the Hillsboro 

Municipal Court. The complaint alleged that Appellee was the assignee of 
Highland App. No. 19CA15 2 

Appellant’s National Rifle Association (NRA) credit card account. The complaint 

further alleged that Appellant owed the sum of $2,070.52 for money due to 

Appellee via Appellant’s use of the credit card account, and that Appellant had 

breached the account agreement for failing to make payments. The complaint 

attached a copy of the account statement and demanded judgment for $2,072.52, 

plus interest. Appellant was properly served with the complaint. 

{¶3} On December 28, 2018, Appellant filed a responsive pleading 

captioned “Private” and indicating it was a response to Appellee’s counsel. For 

various reasons contained within the pleading, Appellant answered that the debt 

was uncollectable. The trial court scheduled the matter for a pretrial. 

{¶4} On February 6, 2019, Appellee filed a notice of service of written 

discovery requests, including requests for admissions. On February 22, 2019, 

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.1

 On March 6, 2019, Appellant 

filed a response to the discovery requests. Also on March 6, 2019, Appellant filed 

a pleading objecting to or denying all requests for admissions. 

{¶5} On March 8, 2019, Appellee filed Plaintiff’s First Motion for 

Extension of Time in order to respond to Appellant’s motion to dismiss. On March 

11, 2019, the trial court granted the motion for extension and ordered Appellee 

 1

 Actually, the pleading was titled “Notice of Motion and Motion Memorandum of Points and Authorities and 

Declaration of Robert J. Parson in Support of Motion to Dismiss Complaint and For Damages.” 
Highland App. No. 19CA15 3 

reply to the motion to dismiss within thirty days. On March 13, 2019, Appellant 

filed requests for written discovery and requests for admissions. 

{¶6} On April 8, 2019, Appellee filed Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct the 

Record, pursuant to Civ.R. 15. In the motion, Appellee asserted that the creditor’s 

name in the original complaint should have been “First National Bank of Omaha,” 

not “National Rifle Association.” On April 9, 2019, the trial court granted the 

motion to correct the record and ordered that the complaint and court records be 

amended so that the original creditor’s name was changed from “National Rifle 

Association” to “First National Bank of Omaha.” 

{¶7} On April 10, 2019, Appellee filed Plaintiff’s Memorandum in 

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Also on April 10, 2019, the trial 

court denied the motion to dismiss. Appellee next moved the court for an 

extension of time to respond to Appellee’s first set of discovery requests. On April 

11, 2019, the trial court ordered that Appellee reply to the discovery requests 

within thirty days. 

{¶8} On May 13, 2019, Appellant filed Defendant’s Request to Strike in 

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. On May 16, 2019, 

Appellee filed both a Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Summary Judgment 

and a Motion for Summary Judgment. The trial court scheduled a hearing on June 

26, 2019. On May 23, 2019, Appellee also filed Plaintiff’s Memorandum in 
Highland App. No. 19CA15 4 

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Strike. On May 29, 2019, the trial court 

denied the motion to strike. 

{¶9} On June 21, 2019, the trial court denied Appellant’s request to strike. 

On June 25, 2019, the trial court granted both Appellee’s motion for leave and the 

motion for summary judgment. This timely appeal followed. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR 

{¶10} Appellant's brief posits no assignments of error but does raise 

several issues. In light of our policy of extending considerable leniency to pro se 

litigants, see State v. Esparza, 4th Dist. Washington No. 12CA42, 2013-Ohio2138, at ¶ 5; State v. Evans, 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 11CA24, 2013-Ohio-4143, at 

¶ 7, fn. 2, we will consider those issues despite Appellant's failure to comply with 

App.R. 16(A)(3). State v. Cargile,4th Dist. Scioto No.14CA3661, 2015-Ohio3629, at ¶ 5; See also, In re Estate of Poling, 4th Dist. Hocking No. 04CA18, 2005-

Ohio-5147, at ¶ 18. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW 

{¶11} Appellate review of summary judgment decisions is de novo, 

governed by the standards of Civ.R. 56. Turner v. Dimex, 4th Dist. Washington 

No. 19CA3, 2019-Ohio-4251, at ¶ 6; Vacha v. N. Ridgeville, 136 Ohio St.3d 199, 

2013-Ohio-3020, 992 N.E.2d 1126, ¶ 19; Citibank v. Hine, 4th Dist. Ross, 2019-

Ohio-464, 130 N.E.3d 924, at ¶ 27. Summary judgment is appropriate if the party 
Highland App. No. 19CA15 5 

moving for summary judgment establishes that (1) there is no genuine issue of 

material fact, (2) reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, which is 

adverse to the party against whom the motion is made and, (3) the moving party is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Capital One Bank (USA) N.A. v. Rose, 4th 

Dist. Ross No. 18CA3628, 2018-Ohio-2209, 2018 WL 2749510, at ¶ 23; Civ.R. 

56; New Destiny Treatment Ctr., Inc. v. Wheeler, 129 Ohio St.3d 39, 2011-Ohio2266, 950 N.E.2d 157, ¶ 24; Chase Home Finance, LLC v. Dunlap, 4th Dist. Ross 

No. 13CA3409, 2014-Ohio-3484, at ¶ 26. 

{¶12} The moving party has the initial burden of informing the trial 

court of the basis for the motion by pointing to summary judgment evidence 

and identifying parts of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine 

issue of material fact on the pertinent claims. Turner, supra, at ¶ 7; Dresher 

v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 293, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996); Chase Home 

Finance, supra, at ¶ 27; Citibank, supra, at ¶ 28. Once the moving party 

meets this initial burden, the non-moving party has the reciprocal burden 

under Civ.R. 56(E) to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine 

issue remaining for trial. Dresher, 75 Ohio St.3d at 293, 662 N.E.2d 264. 

See also Rose, supra, at ¶ 24. 

{¶13} Pursuant to the above rule, a trial court may not enter summary 
Highland App. No. 19CA15 6 

judgment if it appears a material fact is genuinely disputed. Turner, supra, 

at ¶ 8; Ball v. MPW Indus. Servs., Inc., 2016-Ohio-5744, 60 N.E. 3d 1279 

(5th Dist.) at ¶ 29, citing, Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421, 429, 674 

N.E.2d 1164 (1997), citing Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 

264 (1996). 

LEGAL ANALYSIS 

{¶14} In this case, Appellant did not file a response in opposition to 

Appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Civ.R. 56(E) provides in part that: 

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as 

provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere 

allegations or denials of the party's pleadings, but the party's 

response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set 

forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If 

the party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate,

shall be entered against the party. (Emphasis added.) 

{¶15} Thus, the fact that the non-moving party failed to file a timely 

response in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, standing alone, is not 

a proper basis on which to grant summary judgment. Calvalry SPV I LLC v. 

Taylor, 7th Dist. Mahoning No.17MA0107, 2018-Ohio-1765, at ¶ 16. “ ‘[E]ven if 

the non-moving party does not respond, summary judgment may be granted only if 
Highland App. No. 19CA15 7 

the movant has satisfied the prerequisites to summary judgment.’ ” Calvalry, 

supra, quoting, CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Firestone, 9th Dist. No. 25959, 2012-Ohio2044, ¶ 10. Here, despite Appellant’s failure to file a responsive pleading asserting 

that there are genuine issues of material fact, we must determine if the trial court’s 

ruling in favor of Appellee was appropriate. 

{¶16} Civil Rule 56(E) also provides: 

Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal 

knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in

evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to 

testify to the matters stated therein. Sworn or certified copies of all 

papers or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit shall be attached 

thereto or served therewith. 

{¶17} In this case, in November 2018, Appellee filed a suit for money lent 

to Appellant on an NRA Visa credit card issued to him. In April 2019, Appellee 

filed a motion to correct the record to correct the pleadings to indicate that the First 

National Bank of Omaha was the original creditor. Appellee also asserted that 

Exhibit A attached to the complaint demonstrated that the First National Bank of 

Omaha was the servicer of the NRA Visa credit card. 

{¶18} The trial court granted this motion. Exhibit A, Appellant’s NRA Visa 

credit account statement demonstrates that on the statement, the First National 
Highland App. No. 19CA15 8 

Bank of Omaha is the contact name if a copy of Billing Rights is requested. The 

First National Bank of Omaha is also the contact name for receipt of any 

complaints regarding dissatisfaction with the NRA Visa credit card purchases. 

{¶19} In support of the motion for summary judgment, Appellant attached 

an affidavit made by Keona I. Berry, employed as a business analyst for Appellee. 

In the first paragraph, she averred that she had personal knowledge of the facts 

from her review of the account information in the possession of Appellee. Her 

affidavit set forth the following additional facts: 

2. Plaintiff purchased the receivable after it was in default from the 

credit grantor, First National Bank of Omaha, and succeeded to all 

rights that Plaintiff’s assignor had against Defendant. 

3. This action is based upon a credit agreement entered into between 

Defendant and the credit grantor. Pursuant to the agreement, 

Defendant agreed to pay monthly installments to the credit grantor. 

Upon information and belief, Defendant failed to make payments due 

pursuant to the agreement. 

4. In the performance of my duties, I’m familiar with the manner and 

method by which Plaintiff creates and maintains its normal business 

books and records, including computer records of its collection

accounts. Plaintiff maintains computer records of activity on the 

accounts that occurred since it purchased the accounts including 

payments received, amounts owing on such accounts, credits and 

debits, and also has computer records of the information that Plaintiff 

acquired from its assignor. Entries are made in such computer 

records only by individuals who have examined the account 

information at or near the time the events reflected in them occurred 

or who have relied on account information from Plaintiff’s assignor. 

Plaintiff’s records were made in the regular course of business and it 

was the regular course of such business to make the records. 
Highland App. No. 19CA15 9 

5. The balance, after all prior payments and credits have been

allowed, due and owing to Plaintiff from Defendant is $2,070.52. 

6. Attached hereto are true and exact copies of documents reflecting 

the transfer of ownership of this account from First National Bank of 

Omaha to Plaintiff. 

{¶20} In Bank of New York Mellon v. Bobo, 2015-Ohio-4601, 50 N.E.3d 

229 (4th Dist.), this court discussed the applicable rules governing the Civ.R. 56(E) 

requirement that an affidavit be made on personal knowledge. “ ‘To be considered 

in a summary judgment motion, Civ.R. 56(E) requires an affidavit to be made on 

personal knowledge, set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and 

affirmatively show that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated in 

the affidavit.’ ” Bobo, supra, at ¶ 35, quoting, Fifth Third Mtge. Co. v. Bell, 12th 

Dist. Madison No. CA2013-02-003, 2013-Ohio-3678, ¶ 27, citing Civ.R. 56(E); 

see also Wesley v. Walraven, 4th Dist. Washington No. 12CA18, 2013-Ohio-473, 

¶ 24. “ ‘ “Absent evidence to the contrary, an affiant's statement that his affidavit 

is based on personal knowledge will suffice to meet the requirement of Civ.R. 

56(E).” ’ ” Bobo, supra, quoting, Bell at ¶ 27, quoting Wells Fargo Bank v. Smith, 

12th Dist. Brown No. CA2012-04-006, 2013-Ohio-855, ¶ 16. “Additionally, 

documents referred to in an affidavit must be attached and must be sworn or 

certified copies.” Id., citing Civ.R. 56(E). “Verification of these documents is 

generally satisfied by an appropriate averment in the affidavit, for example, that 

‘such copies are true copies and reproductions.’ ” Id., quoting State ex rel. 
Highland App. No. 19CA15 10 

Corrigan v. Seminatore, 66 Ohio St.2d 459, 467, 423 N.E.2d 105 (1981); see also

Walraven at ¶ 31 (“Civ.R. 56(E)'s requirement that sworn or certified copies of all 

papers referred to in the affidavit be attached is satisfied by attaching the papers to 

the affidavit with a statement contained in the affidavit that the copies are true and 

accurate reproductions.”) JPMorgan Chase Bank, Natl. Assn. v. Fallon, 4th Dist. 

Pickaway No. 13CA3, 2014-Ohio-525, ¶ 16. 

{¶21} In this case, Berry’s affidavit sets forth the necessary information to 

satisfy the requirements of Civ.R. 56(E). Berry specifically stated in the first 

paragraph of her affidavit that it was based on her personal knowledge of the facts 

obtained through her review of account records made in the course of her 

employment as a business analyst for Appellee. In the fourth paragraph of Berry’s 

affidavit, she avers that in the performance of her job duties, she is familiar with 

the manner and method by which Appellee maintains its computerized business 

records of account activity. 

{¶22} Further, Berry’s affidavit included explicit statements that the 

documents attached were true and exact copies of documents reflecting the transfer 

of ownership of the First National Bank of Omaha accounts to Appellee. See

Parsons v. Thacker, 4th Dist. Vinton No. 13CA692, 2013-Ohio-4770, ¶ 11, 

quoting Deblasio v. Sinclair, 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 08-MA-23, 2012-Ohio-5848, 

¶ 50, quoting State ex rel. Corrigan v. Seminatore, 66 Ohio St.2d 459, 467, 423 
Highland App. No. 19CA15 11 

N.E.2d 105 (1981) (“ ‘ “The requirement of Civ.R. 56(E) that sworn or certified 

copies of all papers referred to in the affidavit be attached is satisfied by attaching 

the papers to the affidavit, coupled with a statement therein that such copies are 

true copies and reproductions” ’ ”); Freedom Mtge. Corp. v. Vitale, 5th Dist. 

Tuscarawas No. 2013 AP 08 0037, 2014-Ohio-1549, ¶ 26 (“Ohio law recognizes 

that personal knowledge may be inferred from the contents of an affidavit * * * 

[and] [t]he assertion of personal knowledge in an affidavit satisfies Civil Rule 

56(E) if the nature of the facts in the affidavit combined with the identity of the 

affiant creates a reasonable inference that the affiant has personal knowledge of the 

facts in the affidavit.”). 

{¶23} Appellant has raised the following issues on appeal: 

1. Is it error for the trial court to not require Appellee to present any 

signed written agreement between the parties? 

2. Is it error for trial court to not require Appellee to authenticate its 

evidence? 

3. Is it error for the trial court to not require the debt collector to 

properly validate the alleged debt before litigation? 

4. Is it error for the trial court to not consider the Fair Debt Collection 

Practices Act violations committed by Appellee or Appellee’s 

counsel? 

5. Is it error for the trial court to not recognize Appellee’s lack of 

privity? 

6. Is it error for the trial court to not recognize Appellee’s lack of 

consideration? 

7. Is it error for the trial court to not rule on Appellant’s alternative 

defenses? 

8. Is it error for the trial court to not rule on Appellant’s 

counterclaims? 
Highland App. No. 19CA15 12 

9. Is it error for the trial court to not rule that counsel misrepresented 

the material facts? 

{¶24} Appellant filed no reply to Appellee's motion for summary judgment. 

As stated above, although the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material 

fact exists falls upon the party requesting summary judgment, once this has been 

shown the nonmoving party must then present evidentiary materials demonstrating 

that a material issue of fact does exist. Sheppard v. McSweeney’s Inc., 4th Dist. 

Lawrence No. CA-95-4, 1995 WL 571890 (Sept. 27, 1995), at *3; Wing v. Anchor 

Media, Ltd. of Texas, 59 Ohio St.3d 108, 111, 570 N.E. 2d 1095 (1991); Mitseff v. 

Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112, 115, 526 N.E.2d 798 (1988); Morehead v. Conley, 75 

Ohio App.3d 409, 413, 599 N.E.2d 786, (4th Dist. 1991). “[T]he nonmoving party 

cannot rely on bare pleadings unsupported by evidentiary material.” Whiteleather 

v. Yosowitz, 10 Ohio Ap.3d 272, 275,461 N.E. 2d 1331, (8th Dist.1983). Rather, 

the nonmoving party has an obligation to present evidence in some form permitted 

by Civ.R. 56(C) controverting the evidence presented by the moving party. 

Rayburn v. J.C. Penney Outlet Store, 3 Ohio App.3d 463, 464, 445 N.E.2d 1167 

(10th Dist. 1982). 

{¶25} The record before us contains no response to plaintiff's motion for 

summary judgment. Appellant did not fulfill his obligation to present evidence 

controverting that proffered by Appellee. Consequently, there is no genuine issue 

of material fact, and reasonable minds could only conclude that Appellant owed 
Highland App. No. 19CA15 13 

$2,072.52 on his credit card account to Appellee. Appellee is entitled to judgment 

as a matter of law, and the trial court did not err in granting Appellee's motion for 

summary judgment. Accordingly, Appellant’s assignment of error is overruled, 

and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

 JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

 
Highland App. No. 19CA15 14 

JUDGMENT ENTRY 

It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE AFFIRMED and costs be assessed to 

Appellant. 

The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the 

Hillsboro Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 

27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

Abele, J. and Hess, J. concur in Judgment and Opinion. 

 For the Court, 

 __________________________________ 

 Jason P. Smith 

Presiding Judge 

NOTICE TO COUNSEL 

Pursuant to Local Rule No. 14, this document constitutes a final 

judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the 

date of filing with the clerk.