### "STATE OK WASHINGTr 20IUUH-9 AH 9-* U2

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A., Respondent,

MARGARET CARTER & LEON CARTER, Appellants. No. 69903-2-1 DIVISION ONE

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FILED: June 9, 2014 Schindler, J. — Margaret and Leon Carter appeal the order granting Citibank's motion for summaryjudgment. The Carters contend Citibank did not provide adequate proofof assent to the terms of an unsigned credit card agreement and genuine issues ofmaterial fact precluded summaryjudgment. Because Citibank provided proof of assent and the Carters presented no evidence to create a genuine issue ofmaterial fact, we affirm. FACTS Citibank issued a Sears credit card to Margaret Carter and sent her a "Card 

### Agreement." From 2006 to 2009, Margaret regularly used the Sears credit card to make 

### purchases, and made monthlypayments on the account.1 Margaret eventually stopped

We refer to the parties by theirfirst names forpurposes ofclarity and mean no disrespect by doing so.No. 69903-2-1/2 making payments. 

### On October 19, 2010, Citibankfiled a lawsuitagainst Margaretfor the past due amount owed on the account totaling $15,882.82. Citibank requestedjudgmentforthe amount owed plus interest and attorney fees. Margaret's spouse Leon, appearing pro se, argued that he should be added to the lawsuit as a defendant. The court added Leon to the caption ofthe lawsuit as a joint holder ofthe credit card. Citibank filed a motion for summaryjudgment. Citibank argued that by using the card, the Carters assented to the terms ofthe Card Agreement and "to the amount due and owing as stated on the billing statements." In support of its motion for summary judgment, Citibank submitted an affidavit from Citibank Document Control Officer Mary Crum. Crum states the account statements "reflect[ ] that charges were made on the Account to purchase goods and services and/or obtain cash advances." Crum also states that the Carters "did eventually fail to make required payments on the Account" and are "presently in default on the Account." Crum states the balance on the account is $15,882.82 and the "Account Statement does not reflect any outstanding disputes on the Account." Crum attached account statements for the period of July 7, 2006 to March 9, 2010, a copy ofthe Card Agreement, copies ofchecks showing that 

### Margaret's spouse Leon made payments on the credit card account, and "Sears Statement Transaction Reference Report[s]." 

### The Card Agreement states, "This Card Agreement is your contract with us. It governs the use of your card and account." The Card Agreement also states, 

### You agree to use your account in accordance with this Agreement. You must pay us for all amounts due on your account. This Agreement isNo. 69903-2-1/3 

### binding on you unless you close your account within 30 days after receiving the card and you have not used or authorized use ofthe card. The Sears Statement Transaction Reference Reports show individual items the 

### Carters purchased and the payments made on the account from September20, 2006 to October 26, 2006. 

### In opposition to summaryjudgment, the Carters "acknowledge^] that there is a 

### debt, but dispute[ ] the amount claimed." The Carters argued they were "not bound by contractto the debt and should have the rightto challenge the ownership and amount." The Carters submitted no evidence in opposition to summaryjudgment. In reply, 

### Citibank argued that although the Carters disputed the amount owed, the unrebutted evidence established the amount owed. 

### The court granted Citibank's motion for summary judgment and entered 

### judgmentin the amount of$15,882.82 plus $259 in costs against Margaret Carter.
ANALYSIS 

### The Carters argue that Citibankfailed to provide adequate proofofassent to the terms of an unsigned credit card agreement. 

### Wereview summary judgmentde novo. Kruse v. Hemp, 121 Wn.2d 715, 722, 853 P.2d 1373 (1993). Summary judgment is appropriate only when "there is no 

### genuine issue as to anymaterial fact and

... themoving party isentitled to ajudgment as a matter oflaw." CR56(c); Hansenv. Friend, 118Wn.2d 476, 485, 824 P.2d 483 

### (1992). Ifin viewing all ofthe evidence reasonable minds could reachonly one conclusion, summaryjudgment isappropriate. Hansen, 118Wn.2d at 485. "A party 

### may not rely onmere allegations, denials, opinions, orconclusory statements, but, rathermust setforth specifics indicating material facts for trial." Int'l Ultimate. Inc. v. St.No. 69903-2-1/4 Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.. 122 Wn. App. 736, 744, 87 P.3d 774 (2004) (citing CR 

### 56(e); Grimwood v. Univ. ofPuqet Sound, Inc., 110 Wn.2d 355, 359, 753 P.2d 517 (1988)). The formation of a contract requires objective manifestation of mutual assent. 

### Hoqlund v. Meeks, 139 Wn. App. 854, 870, 170 P.3d 37 (2007). "Generally, manifestations of mutual assent will be expressed by an offer and acceptance." Keystone Land & Dev. Co. v. Xerox Corp., 152 Wn.2d 171, 178, 94 P.3d 945 (2004). 

### The existence of mutual assent or a meeting ofthe minds is generally a question of fact, 

### but a question of fact may be determined as a matter of law where reasonable minds could not differ. Sea-Van Invs. Assocs. v. Hamilton, 125 Wn.2d 120, 126, 881 P.2d 

### 1035 (1994); Keystone, 152Wn.2d at 178 n.10. "The offeror is the master of the offer" and "may propose acceptance by conduct, and the buyer mayaccept byperforming 

### those acts proposedby the offeror." Discover Bank v. Ray, 139Wn. App. 723,727, 162 P.3d 1131 (2007). 

### In Ray, the credit card user argued Discover Bank provided insufficient proofthat he accepted the cardmember agreement. Ray, 139Wn. App. at 725-26. The court 

### disagreed. The cardmemberagreement "clearly and unambiguously provided that use of the credit card issued by Discover Bank constituted an acceptance of the 

### cardmember agreement." Ray. 139 Wn. App. at727. Theevidence Discover Bank submitted at summary judgment established that Ray used the card for several years. 

### The courtheld Ray accepted the terms of the cardmember agreement "through his conduct of using the credit card." Ray, 139Wn. App. at 727.No. 69903-2-1/5 Here, the Carters' Card Agreement specifically provides that the Carters "agree 

### to use your account inaccordance with this Agreement," and that "[tjhisAgreement is binding on you unless you close your account within 30 days after receiving the card 

### and you have not used or authorized use of the card."2 As inRay, the evidence Citibank submitted in support of its summaryjudgment motion established thatthe Carters used the credit card to make purchases for several years, and accepted the clear and unambiguous terms ofthe Card Agreement. 

### The Carters rely on Discover Bank v. Bridges, 154 Wn. App. 722, 226 P.3d 191 (2010). Bridges does not support their argument. In Bridges. Discover Bank sued the 

### Bridgeses alleging they owed approximately$12,000 on a credit card. Bridges. 154 Wn. App. at 724. Discover Bankfiled a motion for summaryjudgment and in support, submitted account statements covering a seven-day period. Bridges, 154 Wn. App. at 

### 724. The court granted summary judgment. Bridges, 154Wn. App. at 725. On appeal, the Bridgeses argued that Discover Bank did notdemonstrate that 

### theymutually assented to a contract by accepting the cardmemberagreement and personally acknowledging their account. Bridges. 154Wn. App. at727. Thecourtheld that because Discover presented no evidence of the Bridgeses' personal 

### acknowledgement of the account, genuine issues ofmaterial fact precluded summary 

### judgment. Bridges, 154Wn. App. at728. Thecourt stated thattherecord contained "neithera signed agreementbetween Discover Bank and the Bridgeses, nordetailed, itemized proofofthe Bridgeses' card usage." Bridges. 154Wn. App. at 727. The court also stated that Discover Bankpresented no evidence to show "that the Bridgeses

2(Emphasis added.)No. 69903-2-1/6 

### acknowledged the debt, for example, through evidence ofcancelled checks or online payment documentation." Bridges. 154 Wn. App. at 727. Here, unlike in Bridges. Citibank submitted copies ofseveral checks drawn on the account of Leon Carterfor payments on the Sears credit card. Citibank also 

### provided "detailed, itemized proof'3of the Carters' use of the credit card by submitting Sears Statement Transaction Reference Reports and account statements for a fouryear period showing the Carters made purchases and payments on the account. Inthe alternative, the Carters argue that genuine issues of material fact as to "debt liability," "debt standing," and "debt ownership" preclude summaryjudgment. But the undisputed record shows the Carters had a credit card account with Citibank, the Carters owed $15,882.82 on the account, and Citibank had no record of outstanding disputes as to the amount owed. Because there was no genuine issue of material fact, the court did not err by granting summaryjudgment. We affirm.4 

# ^rjhw>ga

WE CONCUR:



# /Uf 

# ^

3 Bridges. 154 Wn. App. at 727. 4The Carters also make a number ofassignments of error unsupported byargument in their brief. We do notaddress these assignments of error. Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Boslev, 118 Wn.2d 801, 809, 828 P.2d 549 (1992).