Asset Acceptance Corp. v. Proctor
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Kline, Presiding Judge.
{¶ 1} Larry K. Proctor appeals from the Marietta Municipal Court’s summary judgment in favor of Asset Acceptance Corporation (“Asset”). Proctor argues that there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding the amount of damages he owes Asset. Proctor contends that Asset did not offer sufficient evidence to prove the amount that Proctor owes on his credit card and did not show that the payments Proctor made were credited to his account. We agree with Proctor that there is a genuine issue of material fact. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Dresher v. BurtOhio Supreme Court · 1996
- C. E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
- Mitseff v. WheelerOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- Bostic v. ConnorOhio Supreme Court · 1988
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Great Seneca Financial v. FeltyOhio Court of Appeals · 2006
- Minster Farmers Cooperative Exchange Co. v. DuesOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- Chase Bank, USA v. CurrenOhio Court of Appeals · 2010
- Capital One Bank (USA) N.A. v. RyanOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
- Konica Minolta Business Solutions, U.S.A., Inc. v. Allied Office Products, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2010
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.