Court Opinion

ID: 9882845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-05 22:20:52.68835+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:03.795015
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Autovest, L.L.C. v. Ruff, 2023-Ohio-2937.]

                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                                   TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Autovest, L.L.C.,                                     :

                 Plaintiff-Appellee,                  :

v.                                                    :                     No. 23AP-29
                                                                    (M.C. No. 2021 CVF 036652)
Adrienne Ruff and Gerry Ruff,                         :
                                                                    (REGULAR CALENDAR)
                 Defendants-Appellants.               :

                                            D E C I S I O N

                                     Rendered on August 22, 2023

                 On brief: Slovin & Associates Co., LPA, and Brad A. Council.
                 Argued: Brad A. Council.

                 On brief: Gerry Ruff, pro se. Argued: Gerry Ruff.

                       APPEAL from the Franklin County Municipal Court

BEATTY BLUNT, P.J.

        {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Gerry Ruff,1 appeals from the December 15, 2022 entry
granting the motion of plaintiff-appellee, Autovest, L.L.C. (“Autovest”), for summary
judgment filed pursuant to Civ.R. 56. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment
of the trial court.
I. Facts and Procedural History
        {¶ 2} On December 15, 2021, Autovest filed a complaint upon a certain promissory
note (the “Note”) against appellant and Adrienne Ruff. In the complaint, Autovest alleged
it had acquired rights to pursue the Note, a copy of which it attached to the complaint,
executed on or about October 17, 2014 by appellant and Adrienne Ruff and the original

1 Although Adrienne Ruff was also a defendant in the action below, we note that she did not file a Notice of

Appeal in this matter. It is well-settled that while an individual may represent himself pro se, a non-attorney
may not represent another party. Therefore, only Gerry Ruff is an appellant in the instant appeal.
No. 23AP-29                                                                                2

lender, First Investors Financial Services, Inc. (“First Investors”) in the original sum of
$20,488.81, plus interest. (Dec. 15, 2021 Compl. at ¶ 1-2; Ex. A.) Autovest alleged appellant
and Adrienne Ruff were in default under the terms of the Note because, despite demand for
payment, installment payments had not been paid. Id. at ¶ 4. In addition to attaching a
copy of the Note to the complaint, Autovest attached a copy of the general ledger and
accounting of the account of appellant and Adrienne Ruff and copies of correspondence
sent from First Investors to appellant and Adrienne Ruff, including a “Notice of Our Plan
to Sell Property”2 and an “Explanation of Calculation of Surplus or Deficiency.” (See
Compl.) Autovest also attached to the complaint a copy of the Bill of Sale and Assignment
to Autovest of certain accounts owned by First Investors, dated June 27, 2019, and the
August 11, 2021 Affidavit of Julie Allen, a representative of Autovest, who attested to the
assignment of the account of appellant and Adrienne Ruff by First Investors to Autovest.
Id. As a result, Autovest claimed the sum of $12,726.58, accrued interest in the sum of
$1,784.23, plus statutory interest from the date of judgment, plus miscellaneous fees or
charges pursuant to the Note in the amount of $45.52, plus costs expended, was due and
owing to it. (Compl. at ¶ 7.)
       {¶ 3} In response to the complaint, appellant filed a motion to dismiss on
February 1, 2022, arguing that Autovest lacked standing in the matter as it had “not
provided the court with any evidence that [Autovest] ever held the alledged (sic) note or
took possession of the note and thus has no claim or rights to bring suite (sic) against
Defendants.” (Mot. to Dismiss at 2.) On March 30, 2022 the trial court denied appellant’s
motion to dismiss.
       {¶ 4} On April 21, 2022, Autovest served upon appellant and Adrienne Ruff
discovery requests, including requests for admission. It is undisputed that appellant did
not respond to the requests for admission.
       {¶ 5} On September 30, 2022, with leave of the trial court, Autovest filed a motion
for summary judgment. In its motion, Autovest argued that appellant failed to respond to
the April 21, 2022 request for admissions and therefore those matters were deemed
admitted for purposes of summary judgment, leaving no genuine issues of material fact for
trial. Inexplicably, appellant filed three separate responses to the motion for summary

2 The Property was a 2009 BMW 3 Series.
No. 23AP-29                                                                                                3

judgment: first on October 21, 2022, again on October 24, 2022, and again on November 1,
2022. In all three responses, appellant contended, in essence, that Autovest was not
entitled to summary judgment because it had failed to properly introduce and/or
authenticate the Note. Appellant did not address his failure to respond to the requests for
his admission in any of his three responses to the motion for summary judgment. Appellant
did, however, attach his own affidavit3 to both the first response and the last response, in
which he purports to attest, amongst other things, that Autovest had not established that
the copy of the Note submitted was “a true and accurate copy of the alleged original blue-
ink signed Promissory note in this matter.” (Gerry Ruff Aff. at ¶ 6 attached to Oct. 21, 2022
Mot. To Deny Pl. Request For Summ. Jgmt.)
        {¶ 6} On December 15, 2022, the trial court filed a judgment entry granting
summary judgment in favor of Autovest against both appellant and Adrienne Ruff in the
principal sum of $12,726.58, plus accrued interest in the sum of $1,784.23 through
August 17, 2022, plus interest thereafter at the rate of 3.0 percent per annum until paid,
plus miscellaneous fees or charges pursuant to the Note in the amount of $45.52, plus court
costs. (Dec. 15, 2022 Entry for Summ. Jgmt.)
        {¶ 7} On January 18, 2023, appellant timely filed this appeal.

II. Assignment of Error

        {¶ 8} Appellant asserts the following assignment of error for our review:

                 The trial court erred in granting AUTOVEST LLC, Motion for
                 summary judgment, and in holding AUTOVEST LLC, to be the
                 owner of an alleged note that Gerry Ruff and Adrienne Ruff
                 are a party to.

(Sic passim.)

III. Law and Analysis

        A. Standard of Review

        {¶ 9} We review a decision on a motion for summary judgment under a de novo
standard. LRC Realty, Inc. v. B.E.B. Properties, 160 Ohio St.3d 218, 2020-Ohio-3196, ¶ 11.

3 Although the affidavits have two separate dates on them (Oct. 21 and Oct. 10, 2022, respectively), they are

otherwise identical.
No. 23AP-29                                                                                   4

De novo appellate review means the court of appeals conducts an independent review,
without deference to the trial court’s decision. Wiltshire Capital Partners v. Reflections II,
Inc., 10th Dist. No. 19AP-415, 2020-Ohio-3468, ¶ 12. Summary judgment is appropriate
only when the moving party demonstrates: (1) no genuine issue of material fact exists,
(2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) reasonable minds
could come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom
the motion for summary judgment is made. Civ.R. 56(C); State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp.
Relations Bd., 78 Ohio St.3d 181, 183 (1997). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment,
the court must resolve all doubts and construe the evidence in favor of the nonmoving
party. Premiere Radio Networks, Inc. v. Sandblast, L.P., 10th Dist. No. 18AP-736, 2019-
Ohio-4015, ¶ 6.
       {¶ 10} Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), the party moving for summary judgment bears the
initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion and of identifying those
portions of the record demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 293 (1996). The moving party cannot satisfy this initial
burden by simply making conclusory allegations, but instead must demonstrate, including
by use of affidavit or other evidence allowed by Civ.R. 56(C), that there are no genuine
issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Wiltshire Capital Partners at ¶ 13. If the moving party fails to satisfy this initial burden,
the court must deny the motion for summary judgment; however, if the moving party
satisfies the initial burden, the nonmoving party has a burden to respond, by affidavit or
otherwise as provided under Civ.R. 56, with specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue
exists for trial. Dresher at 293; Hall v. Ohio State Univ. College of Humanities, 10th Dist.
No. 11AP-1068, 2012-Ohio-5036, ¶ 12, citing Henkle v. Henkle, 75 Ohio App.3d 732, 735
(12th Dist.1991).
       B. Discussion
       {¶ 11} In his sole assignment of error, appellant asserts Autovest failed to provide
sufficient evidentiary quality materials to establish that the copy of the Note submitted by
Autovest is a true and accurate copy and that Autovest is the owner of the Note and entitled
to enforce the obligations thereon. Therefore, appellant asserts the trial court erred in
granting summary judgment in favor of Autovest. As explained below, we disagree.
No. 23AP-29                                                                                  5

        {¶ 12} In support of its motion for summary judgment, Autovest submitted the
affidavit of Julie Allen as the Authorized Representative of Autovest.4 In her affidavit, Allen
attested that Autovest is the assignee of First Investors on the account of Adrienne Ruff and
Gerry Ruff; that as a condition of assignment, First Investors (and/or its successors in
interest), has provided records related to the account of Adrienne Ruff and Gerry Ruff that
it created and maintained in the ordinary course of business; that Autovest has
incorporated these records into its own, maintained them in the ordinary course of business
and relied upon them; and that Allen, as part of her duties, is familiar with the account of
Adrienne Ruff and Gerry Ruff, having access to, and control over, all records relating
thereto which are currently in Autovest’s possession. (Sept. 27, 2022 Mot. for Summ.
Jgmt.; Julie Allen Aff., ¶ 2-4). Allen further stated that, based on Autovest’s information
and belief from the records provided by the assignor, the balance due on the debt is
$12,726.58 plus accrued interest in the sum of $1,784.23, plus miscellaneous fees or
charges pursuant to the agreement in the amount of $45.52. Id. at ¶ 5.
        {¶ 13} In further support of its motion for summary judgment, Autovest noted that
on April 21, 2022, it served upon appellant the following requests for admissions to which
appellant had failed to respond:
                 1. You received originals or accurate copies of each document
                 attached to the Complaint.

                 2. Each document attached to the Complaint is a true and
                 correct copy of a genuine original document.

                 3. You contracted for and received credit from plaintiff, or
                 plaintiff’s predecessor in interest, on terms set forth in the
                 document(s) attached to plaintiff’s Complaint.

                 4. You signed the original of each document attached to
                 plaintiff’s Complaint that bears your name and signature.

                 5. You received everything you expected to receive in
                 consideration of, or in exchange for, the extension of credit to
                 you by plaintiff, or plaintiff’s predecessor in interest.

4 This is the same affidavit of Julie Allen attached to Autovest’s complaint.
No. 23AP-29                                                                                6

              6. The agreements set forth in plaintiff’s Complaint and any
              exhibits attached thereto have not been subsequently
              modified or superseded.

              7. Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, you never notified
              plaintiff, or plaintiff’s predecessor in interest, of any reason
              why you were not obligated to pay to plaintiff, or plaintiff’s
              predecessor in interest, the amount sued for.

              8. You have defaulted under the agreement by failing to make
              payments as required.

              9. You have made no payments to the plaintiff, or plaintiff’s
              predecessor in interest, that are not reflected in the principal
              balance sued for in plaintiff’s Complaint.

              10. The balance herein sued for is due and owing by you to
              plaintiff.

              11. You have no evidence that you are entitled to any credits,
              offsets, or deductions not already reflected in the balance sued
              for in plaintiff’s Complaint.

              12. You received proper notice of the vehicle resale.

              13. The resale of the vehicle was performed in a commercially
              reasonable manner.

              14. There are no documents, writings, letters, records, or
              papers of any kind that you or any other defendant intend to
              use as evidence of or a basis for any defense or counterclaim
              in this action.

(Mot. for Sum. Jgmt. at 1; Ex. A.) Appellant does not dispute that the requests for
admissions were properly served and that he failed to respond to the requests.
       {¶ 14} Under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, Civ.R. 36 permits a party to serve
requests for admissions on another party. Pursuant to Civ.R. 36(A)(1), the matter identified
in the requests is deemed admitted unless, within the designated period, the answering
party serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter.
If the answering party responds with an objection, “the reasons therefor shall be stated”
and the “answer shall specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why the
answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter.” Civ.R. 36(A)(2). “An
No. 23AP-29                                                                                    7

answering party may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to
admit or deny unless the party states that the party has made reasonable inquiry and that
the information known or readily obtainable by the party is insufficient to enable the party
to admit or deny.” Civ.R. 36(A)(2).
       {¶ 15} Under Civ.R. 36(A), a party’s failure to timely respond to a request for
admissions with an answer or objection “constitutes a conclusive admission of the matter
contained in the request, and becomes facts of record the trial court must recognize.”
Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v. Harrison, 10th Dist. No. 17AP-344, 2017-Ohio-8981, ¶ 9,
citing Cleveland Trust Co. v. Willis, 20 Ohio St.3d 66, 67 (1985). Such an admission under
Civ.R. 36 is made automatically, and the party requesting the admission is not required to
take any further action. R & J Solutions, Inc. v. Moses, 10th Dist. No. 19AP-703, 2021-
Ohio-1315, ¶ 20; Thomas v. Netcare Corp., 10th Dist. No. 17AP-705, 2018-Ohio-3462, ¶ 13.
Therefore, “ ‘once a party fails to timely respond to the requests for admissions, the
defaulted admissions become facts, and a motion seeking confirmation of those admissions
is not necessary.’ ” Progressive Direct Ins. Co. at ¶ 10, quoting Samaan v. Walker, 10th
Dist. No. 07AP-767, 2008-Ohio-5370, ¶ 8. “A request for admission can be used to
establish a fact, even if it goes to the heart of the case. This is in accord with the purpose of
the request to admit—to resolve potentially disputed issues and thus to expedite the trial.”
Cleveland Trust Co. at 67. See LVNV Funding, LLC v. Kaminsky, 10th Dist. No. 10AP-1141,
2011-Ohio-3085, ¶ 14; Thomas at ¶ 14.
       {¶ 16} Here, because appellant neither responded to Autovest’s requests for
admissions nor sought relief from admission under Civ.R. 36, he conceded that (1) the copy
of the Note attached to the complaint is a true and correct copy of the genuine original
document; (2) he contracted for and received credit from either Autovest or Autovest’s
predecessor in interest; (3) he signed the original Note; (4) he failed to make the required
payments under the Note; (5) he was in default; and (6) the balance due and owing by him
to Autovest pursuant to the terms of the Note. Although the admissions did not establish
the assignment of the debt to Autovest, Ms. Allen’s affidavit provided evidence of that
assignment. In short, by failing to respond to Autovest’s requests for admissions, appellant
admitted a matter he is now trying to contest, namely that Autovest is entitled to enforce
the obligations under the Note. The trial court could properly consider these admissions to
No. 23AP-29                                                                                                       8

be conclusive in determining that Autovest was entitled to summary judgment in this
matter, and upon our de novo review, we likewise may conclude the same.
        {¶ 17} As noted above, appellant does not dispute that the requests for admissions
were properly served and that he failed to respond to the requests. Nor has he addressed
the unanswered requests for admission in any manner in his appellate brief. Instead, in a
filing made on May 16, 2023 titled “Judicial Notice” and made a full 26 days after any reply
brief was due,5 he points to his affidavit filed in the trial court on November 1, 2022 as
evidence of “rebutting presumption that may arise from [his] failure to respond to the
request for admission in this case,” asserting that in the affidavit he has “clearly stated that
[he] did not admit to the matters in question by failing to respond.” (May 16, 2023 Judicial
Notice at 1.) Firstly, a review of the affidavit filed in the trial court on November 1, 2022
readily evinces it “clearly states” no such thing. Secondly, even if it did, nothing in the civil
rules provides that a party may avoid the consequences of failing to timely respond to
requests for admission by belatedly6 filing an affidavit that purports to negate or “cure” the
resulting effect, and appellant has cited no authority for such a novel proposition.
Therefore, we reject appellant’s position on this point.
        {¶ 18} Nor is appellant’s status as a pro se litigant a defense to his failure to respond
to the requests for admission. Ohio law is well-settled that “ ‘[p]ro se litigants are presumed
to have knowledge of the law and legal procedures and are held to the same standard as
litigants who are represented by counsel.’ ” Johnson v. Levy, 10th Dist. No. 18AP-775,
2019-Ohio-3492, ¶ 22, quoting Rizzo-Lortz v. Erie Ins. Group, 10th Dist. No. 17AP-623,
2019-Ohio-2133, ¶ 18, citing In re Application of Black Fork Wind Energy, LLC, 138 Ohio
St.3d 43, 2013-Ohio-5478, ¶ 22. “ ‘A litigant proceeding pro se can neither expect nor
demand special treatment.’ ” Id., quoting Rizzo-Lortz at ¶ 18, citing Suon v. Mong, 10th
Dist. No. 17AP-879, 2018-Ohio-4187, ¶ 26.

5 Pursuant to App.R. 18(A), any reply brief appellant wished to file was due “within ten days after service of

the brief of the appellee.” App.R. 18(A). Autovest filed its brief on April 10, 2023. Accordingly, any reply of
appellant was due no later than April 20, 2023.

6 As noted previously, the requests for admission were served on April 21, 2022.             Pursuant to Civ.R. 36,
appellant had 28 days—until May 19, 2022—to file his responses or objections thereto. See Civ.R. 36.
Appellant did not first file his affidavit purporting to negate his failure to respond to the requests for admission
until October 21, 2022 when he filed his first response to the motion for summary judgment.
No. 23AP-29                                                                                   9

       {¶ 19} In sum, therefore, because Autovest sustained its initial burden under
Civ.R. 56 to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact in this case, the
burden shifted to appellant to produce some evidence demonstrating such an issue
remained for trial. Dresher, 75 Ohio St.3d at 293. Although appellant filed multiple
responses to the motion for summary judgment, the only evidence he submitted purporting
to show there was an issue of fact for trial was his affidavit which, as discussed above, cannot
serve to negate the facts already deemed admitted by virtue of his failure to respond to the
requests for admissions. Thus, we find the trial court did not err in granting summary
judgment in favor of Autovest. Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s assignment of error.
IV. Disposition
       {¶ 20} Having overruled appellant’s sole assignment of error, we affirm the
judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court.
                                                                          Judgment affirmed.

                           JAMISON and LELAND, JJ., concur.