[Cite as Navy Fed. Credit Union v. Peterson, 2016-Ohio-3227.]

STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

SEVENTH DISTRICT 

NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

VS. 

PHYLLIS A. PETERSON 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. 14 MA 0172 

OPINION 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil Appeal from Court of Common 

Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio 

Case No. 13 CV 3465 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed. 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee 

For Defendant-Appellant Phyllis Peterson, Pro Se 

1605 Country Club Avenue 

Poland, Ohio 44514 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Mary DeGenaro 

Hon. Gene Donofrio 

Hon. Carol Ann Robb 

 

 

 Dated: May 19, 2016 
[Cite as Navy Fed. Credit Union v. Peterson, 2016-Ohio-3227.]

DeGENARO, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Phyllis A. Peterson, appeals the judgment of the 

Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee Navy Federal 

Credit Union (NFCU). Peterson's arguments are meritless, and the judgment of the 

trial court is affirmed for the reasoning set forth below. 

{¶2} NFCU filed a complaint alleging Peterson defaulted on a promissory 

note with the total amount owed of $12,617.30, and also that Peterson owed 

$10,217.59 for unpaid credit card charges. Peterson filed a handwritten statement 

acknowledging receipt of the complaint. She asserted she enrolled in a payment 

protection plan, that she was laid off, and that she submitted the required 

documentation to invoke the plan. In this statement she asserted a counterclaim in 

the amount of $10,000. 

{¶3} In response NFCU filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim, a motion 

for default judgment and a motion for judgment on the pleadings. They argued that 

Peterson failed to attach anything to support her counterclaim, and should the court 

alternatively wish to treat the motion for default as one for summary judgment, NFCU 

attached correspondence that Peterson did not send the required documentation 

under the payment protection plan. Peterson filed a typed letter to the judge that the 

court construed as an answer. The magistrate denied these motions. 

{¶4} As the matter was set for trial, NFCU requested and received leave of 

court to file a motion for summary judgment. The clerk served this order on both 

parties by regular mail. NFCU served a copy of the summary judgment motion to 

Peterson at her address on Country Club Avenue in Youngstown, Ohio. In response 

to the summary judgment motion Peterson filed with the trial court a letter she sent to 

the attorney for NFCU. The trial court granted NFCU summary judgment. In a 

subsequent entry the trial court dismissed Peterson's counterclaim, reasoning: "All 

counterclaims filed by the Defendant are hereby dismissed by the granting of the 

Plaintiff's motion." Peterson appealed both entries separately, and they were 

consolidated into one appeal by this Court.

{¶5} In her first of two assignments of error, Peterson asserts: 
- 2 - 

Appellant's judgment rendered for "the sum of $22,834.89 of which 

$12,617.30 with interest at the rate of 17.24% per annum from September 

16, 2013 shall be its First Cause of Action and, of which, $10, 217.59 with 

interest rate of 16.99 % per annum from October 24, 2013 shall be on its 

Second Cause of Action, plus costs due to the plaintiff's unopposed Motion 

for Summary Judgment. Please note that I did not receive a copy of the 

Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment until April 7, 2015. Therefore, the 

Mahoning county Court of common Pleas erred. 

{¶6} An appellate court reviews a trial court's summary judgment entry de 

novo, applying the same standard used by the trial court. Ohio Govt. Risk Mgt. Plan 

v. Harrison, 115 Ohio St.3d 241, 2007-Ohio-4948, 874 N.E.2d 1155, ¶ 5. Summary 

judgment is properly granted if the trial court, reviewing the evidence in a light most 

favorable to the party against whom the motion is made, determines that: (1) there 

are no genuine issues as to any material facts; (2) the movant is entitled to judgment 

as a matter of law; and (3) the evidence is such that reasonable minds can come to 

but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the opposing party. Civ.R. 

56(C); Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24, 2006-Ohio-3455, 850 N.E.2d 47, ¶ 10. The 

party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the trial 

court of the basis for the motion and pointing to parts of the record that show the 

absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292–

93, 1996-Ohio-107, 662 N.E.2d 264. Once this burden is satisfied, the non-moving 

party bears the burden of offering specific facts to show a genuine issue for trial. Id.

at 293. 

{¶7} Peterson argues that she did not receive a copy of the motion for 

summary judgment. However, three points undercut the veracity of her argument. 

First, as stated above, the docket demonstrates that the clerk's office mailed the 

order granting NFCU leave to file a motion for summary judgment to both parties by 

regular U.S. mail. Secondly, the certificate of service on NFCU's summary judgment 

motion stated that Peterson was served by regular U.S. mail at the same address 
- 3 - 

that she has used throughout these proceedings, which was also the same address 

that Peterson directed this Court to use for all notices related to this appeal. 

{¶8} Finally, the civil docketing statement Peterson filed with this Court in her 

first appeal prior to consolidation, stated in the section entitled "Summary of probable 

issues for review" that she had "filed an opposition to the Motion for Summary 

Judgment." As Peterson filed an opposition to the motion for summary judgment, this 

is further evidence that she did receive NFCU's motion. 

{¶9} As the record demonstrates Peterson did receive the motion for 

summary judgment, that she did not oppose it at the trial court level with any 

evidence to raise an issue of material fact, and that she offered no other argument on 

appeal other than service, Peterson's first assignment of error is meritless. 

{¶10} In her second of two assignments of error, Peterson asserts: 

Amended Judgment Entry, dated December 1, 2014 stating all counter claims 

filed by defendant has been dismissed by granting of the plaintiff's motion. My 

counter claim should be allowed, because I did purchase the unemployment 

payment protection plan for both the credit card and the home improvement

loans. Therefore, the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court erred, and could 

have made a decision on my counterclaim before November 18, 2014. 

{¶11} The record demonstrates that Peterson failed to attach any documents 

to either her counterclaim or in any of her filings with the trial court in opposition to 

NFCU's dispositive motions. Further, in its summary judgment motion NFCU raised 

the argument that Peterson failed to file any supporting documents with her 

counterclaim; and therefore, in the absence of any genuine issue of material fact on 

her counterclaim, NFCU is entitled to summary judgment on its complaint. As 

Peterson has failed to satisfy her reciprocal burden of submitting any evidentiary 

material, she has failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute over a material fact. 

Citmortgage, Inc. v. Stevens, 9th Dist. No. 25644, 2011-Ohio-3944, ¶ 19. 

Consequently, the trial court did not error in granting summary judgment to NFCU, 
- 4 - 

nor did it err in dismissing Peterson's counterclaim based upon granting summary 

judgment in favor of NFCU. Thus, Peterson's second assignment of error is 

meritless. 

{¶12} Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is 

affirmed. 

Donofrio, P. J., concurs. 

Robb, J., concurs.