HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-5707 Civil
CITIBANK (SOUTH, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
DAKOTA), N.A., : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff :
:
:
v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:
JOSEPH A. MARTIN, :
Defendant : NO. 06-5707 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BEFORE BAYLEY, J. AND EBERT, J.
ORDER OF COURT
rd
AND NOW
, this 3 day of March, 2008, upon consideration of the Motion for
Summary Judgment filed by the Plaintiff and after argument,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED
that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
GRANTED
Judgment is .
By the Court,
M. L. Ebert, Jr., J.
Burton Neil, Esquire
Burton Neil & Associates, P.C.
1060 Andrew Drive, Suit 170
West Chester, PA 19380
610-696-2120
Attorney for the Plaintiff
Joseph Alex Martin, Pro Se
42 Blue Rock Road
Newville, PA 17241
CITIBANK (SOUTH, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
DAKOTA), N.A., : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff :
:
v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:
JOSEPH A. MARTIN, :
Defendant : NO. 06-5707 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BEFORE BAYLEY, J. AND EBERT, J.
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
EBERT, J., March 3, 2008,
In this civil case, Plaintiff has sued Defendant to recover past due balances owed on a
credit card account in the amount of $9,072.89. For the reasons set forth in this opinion,
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff, CITIBANK (SOUTH DAKOTA) N.A., is a national banking association
engaged in various types of banking business including consumer lending through the issuance
1
of credit cards. Defendant, Joseph A. Martin, resides at 42 Blue Rock Road, Newville,
2
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff issued a consumer credit card with a revolving
3
credit line of $3000 to Defendant; Plaintiff mailed monthly account statements to Defendant
which accurately stated the previous balance, debits, credits, and any other credit activity made
4
during the monthly period. Defendant’s monthly activity using Plaintiff’s credit card is as
follows.
5
Billing Cycle Charges Made New Balance Payment Made
6
4/05 – 5/26/05 $591.01 $591.01 $387.97
7
5/05 – 6/27/05 $2,517.89 $2,750.41 $360.00
1
Compl., filed Sept. 28, 2006, ¶ 3.
2
Compl. ¶ 2.
3
See Pl. Ex. A, attached to Complaint.
4
Compl. ¶ 4-6.
5
Balance accrual includes finance charges, late fees, etc. See individual statements attached to Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Judgment, filed Dec. 17, 2007, as “Exhibit 1.” All exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment shall hereinafter be referred to as “Ex. at __”.
6
Ex. 1 at 2
7
Ex. 2 at 6
2
8
6/05 – 7/27/05 $608.07 $3,038.80 $540.00
9
7/05 – 8/26/05 $1,117.76 $3,663.51 $830.77
10
8/05 – 9/27/05 $2,239.20 $5,136.73 $2,377.52
11
9/05 – 10/26/05 $3,345.36 $6,191.40 $100
12
10/05 – 11/28/05 $1,369.57 $7,752.79 $0.00
1314
11/05 – 12/28/05 $63.90 $7,833.96 $14.95
15
12/05 – 1/26/06 $48.95 $8,064.86 $0.00
16
1/06 – 2/24/06 $39.00 $8,308.09 $0.00
17
2/06 – 3/28/06 $39.00 $8,579.54 $0.00
18
3/06 – 4/26/06 $39.00 $8,837.56 $0.00
19
4/05 – 5/26/06 $0.00 $9,072.89 ------
Plaintiff initiated this action seeking to recover the balance owed by the Defendant on
this credit card account, which, according to the Complaint and accompanying statements, was
20
$9,072.89 as of May 26, 2006. Defendant responded to nearly every assertion in the Complaint
21
by claiming that he “lacked sufficient knowledge to affirm or deny the claims.” He apparently
22
even lacked sufficient knowledge to affirm or deny that he had an account with the Plaintiffs.
Plaintiff submitted to Defendant a short list of Requests for Admission, as permitted by
23
Pa.R.C.P. 4014. Defendant, however, failed to respond to the Requests. Plaintiff now moves
for summary judgment.
DISCUSSION
I. General Law
Summary judgment is proper where the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, admissions and affidavits on file demonstrate that there exists no genuine issue of
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pa.R.C.P.
8
Ex. 3 at 3
9
Ex. 4 at 3
10
Ex. 5 at 6
11
Ex. 6 at 5
12
Ex. 7 at 4
13
Ex. 8 at 2. It seems at this point that Defendant terminated his active and regular use of the credit card. Any
further charges made were generated mainly from overage fees, finance charges, credit monitoring, etc.
14
This credit was an adjustment from overpayment, not a payment made willfully by Defendant. See Ex. 9.
15
Ex. 9
16
Ex. 10
17
Ex. 11
18
Ex. 12
19
Ex. 13
20
See Ex. A, attached to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
21
See Defendant’s Answer to Complaint.
22
See Answer and Complaint at ¶ 4.
23
Ex. A
3
1035.2(1), Weiner v. American Honda Motor Co., 718 A.2d 305 (Pa. Super. 1998). The purpose
of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials and to eliminate the waste of time and
resources of both litigants where a trial would be a useless formality. Curan v. Children’s
Service Center, Inc., 578 A.2d 8 (Pa. Super. 1990), appeal denied 585 A.2d 468 (Pa. 1991). The
adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials in their pleadings. Pa.R.C.P.
1035.3(a). In deciding whether summary judgment is proper, the court must construe the facts
on the record in a light that is most favorable to the non-moving party. The court must also
resolve all doubts and reasonable inferences as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact
in favor of the non-moving party. Telega v. Security Bureau, Inc., 719 A.2d 372 (Pa. Super.
1998).
II. Application of the Law
This Court is entirely aware that summary judgment should not be granted lightly and
realizes the finality of such a ruling, but the gravity of the outcome does not outweigh the
parties’ responsibility to proceed before the Court with complete candor. The rule is often stated
that, “[i]n reviewing summary judgment, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in
the non-moving party’s pleadings, giving the non-moving party the benefit of all reasonable
inferences to be drawn therefrom.” Curry v. Estate of Thompson, 481 A.2d 658, 659 (Pa. Super.
1984)(emphasis added). In this case, the issue then turns on “well-pleaded facts” and
“reasonable inferences.”
This matter is not complex. Defendant obtained a credit card from the Plaintiff, used the
card actively from April 2005 to November 2005 to conduct financial transactions, and failed to
make the necessary payments on the account. However, when simple allegations of fact were
made in the Complaint, such as the existence of Defendant’s credit account with Plaintiff,
Defendant answered “I lack sufficient knowledge to affirm or deny.” This is not a “well-pleaded
fact” and as such it does not create a reasonable inference that the account was paid. What it
amounts to is “mere allegation and denial.” In short the Defendant has not set forth specific facts
showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.
Where a motion for summary judgment has been made and properly supported, the party
seeking to avoid the imposition of summary judgment must show by specific facts in their
depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions or affidavits that there is a genuine issue for
trial. Marks v. Tasman, 589 A.2d 205 (Pa. 1991). Here, Defendant maintains total ignorance of
4
his use of the credit card account, and therefore, ipso facto, the account was paid. Due to the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to the balance owed by the Defendants, summary
judgment is properly entered for the Plaintiff as a matter of law and in furtherance of the
legitimate judicial purpose of avoiding unnecessary trials and eliminating waste of time and
resources.
A motion for summary judgment must be granted in favor of a moving party if the other
party chooses to rest on his pleadings, unless a genuine issue of material fact is made out in the
moving party’s evidence taken alone. Defendant’s feigned total loss of recollection regarding
the use of this credit card is simply not a well-plead fact that creates a reasonable inference that
the account was paid. Courts are not powerless when confronted with such bad faith and delay.
To the contrary, entry of summary judgment is not only proper but just.
Accordingly, the following order will be entered:
ORDER OF COURT
rd
AND NOW
, this 3 day of March, 2008, upon consideration of the Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by the Plaintiff and after argument,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED
that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
GRANTED.
Judgment is
By the Court,
___________________________
M. L. Ebert, Jr., J.
Burton Neil, Esquire
Burton Neil & Associates, P.C.
1060 Andrew Drive, Suit 170
West Chester, PA 19380
610-696-2120
Attorney for the Plaintiff
Joseph Alex Martin, Pro Se
42 Blue Rock Road
Newville, PA 17241
5