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

Posted by scott (65.25.99.145) on March 24, 2003 at 21:37:58:

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

Ok I went through the case and saw that orangedog never posted the link for whychat as to where he saw this case. Also, it was never established in english. I will post what he placed below. could someone go through the case piecemeal and tell me just which sentence states ccs are not written accounts.

=========================================
PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] T.C. Case No. 98-CVF-2054.

"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 [*9] 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.

Furthermore, the purpose behind the requirement of Civ.R. 10(D) that a copy of the account be attached to the complaint is to allow the balance to be calculated in an accurate and reliable manner. If Creditrust's action against Richard was considered merely a breach of contract action and not an action on an account, Creditrust's measure of damages would, nevertheless, be the unpaid balance. Consequently, a party in Creditrust's position should not be permitted to evade the requirements of Civ.R. 10(D) by declaring that its claim is merely one for breach of contract, rather than on an account.

Creditrust argues, in the alternative, that it complied with Civ.R. 10(D) and otherwise established the [*10] necessary elements of an action on an account by introducing into evidence copies of Richard's monthly statements from January, 1992, to the date of the charge-off in January, 1993, and by attaching a copy of the "Customer Account Statement" to its complaint, which: (1) contains the name of the party charged with the debt (Richard); (2) has a beginning balance that can "qualify as an account stated," since it is a "provable sum established by the monthly statements introduced into evidence"; (3) "lists items representing charges, debits and credits"; and (4) "contains a summary which permits calculation of the balance claimed to be due and owing."

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup