Re: Case law --Ohio revised-lawguy - link

Posted by lawguy (216.30.212.58) on March 24, 2003 at 17:44:49:

In Reply to: Re: Case law --Ohio revised-lawguy - link posted by LadynRed on March 24, 2003 at 17:15:34:

I found the case. The case involved whether the assignee of the OC needed to comply with Ohio's Rule 10 (attaching a copy of the account to the complaint). The Court found that the assignee had sufficiently complied with the Rule, and affirmed the trial courts award of judgment for the assignee.

Some quotes:

"An action on an account is founded upon contract, Arthur v. Parenteau (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 302, 304, 657 N.E.2d 284, and "is appropriate where the parties have conducted a series of transactions for which a balance remains to be paid." Blanchester Lumber & Supply, Inc. v. Coleman (1990), 69 Ohio App.3d 263, 265, 590 N.E.2d 770"

"Initially, we reject Creditrust's assertion that it did not need to comply with the requirements of Civ.R. 10(D) nor prove the elements of an action on account because its claim was merely one for breach of contract. The relationship between Creditrust's predecessor in interest, Chevy Chase Savings Bank, and Richard was quintessentially one of account creditor and account debtor. The bank and Richard entered into an agreement whereby the bank would extend a line of credit to Richard, and he, in return, would repay the charges plus interest. The contractual relationship covered a series of transactions for which a balance would arise."

This case does not deal with SOL's.

The assignee asserted that its claim was "only" for breach of contract, and not the more specific action on account (which is also a breach of contract claim). The argued that since it is "only" a breach of contract claim, they do not need to comply with Rule 10 regarding accounts.

Evidence was not presented at trial which would permit a finding that the credit card agreement was a written contract. However, the case does not define all credit card agreements as not being written contracts. That wasn't the issue here. The issue was compliance with Rule 10(d).

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup