[Cite as IH Credit Union v. Grimes, 2026-Ohio-2561.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT SHELBY COUNTY
IH CREDIT UNION, CASE NO. 17-26-08 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ANTHONY S. GRIMES, OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Sidney Municipal Court Trial Court No. 25CVF01047
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: July 6, 2026
APPEARANCES:
Anthony S. Grimes Appellant
Allen Reis for Appellee Case No. 17-26-08
WALDICK, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Anthony S. Grimes (“Grimes”), brings this appeal
from the March 19, 2026 judgment of the Sidney Municipal Court. On appeal,
Grimes argues that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of
plaintiff-appellee, IH Credit Union (“IHCU”). For the reasons that follow, we affirm
the judgment of the trial court.
Background
{¶2} On November 15, 2018, Grimes entered into a contract for the purchase
of a Nissan Altima. The contract was assigned to IHCU, which financed the
purchase. The contract required payments of $331.30 for a period of 48 months
beginning December 30, 2018.
{¶3} For eight months, Grimes made payments to IHCU on the vehicle as
scheduled. After those initial eight months of consistent payments, Grimes became
more erratic in making his payments. Beginning in 2020, Grimes made only a
handful of payments at or above the contractual payment amount. Grimes’s last
credited payment on the vehicle was on April 21, 2021, in the amount of $5.
{¶4} On September 29, 2025, IHCU filed a “Complaint for Money” against
Grimes in the Sidney Municipal Court. IHCU alleged that Grimes defaulted under
the terms of the agreement. IHCU alleged that the remaining balance on Grimes’s
loan was $6,256.14 with accrued interest of $3,902.04. The sales contract -2- Case No. 17-26-08
specifically called for an interest rate of 11.79%. IHCU attached a copy of the sales
contract and a copy of the payment history of Grimes.
{¶5} On October 15, 2025, Grimes filed an answer, pro se, admitting that he
executed the retail installment contract, but denying that IHCU was the lawful
owner of the contract. Grimes also admitted that he made payments under the
contract until “approximately the time of his arrest and incarceration.” (Doc. No. 5).
He argued he did not refuse to pay and that any missed payments were the result of
circumstances beyond his control.
{¶6} On November 19, 2025, IHCU filed a motion for summary judgment
arguing that Grimes had effectively admitted that he owed IHCU the money. IHCU
attached an affidavit to its motion for summary judgment from an IHCU custodian
of records indicating Grimes was in default.
{¶7} After Grimes did not respond to IHCU’s motion for summary judgment,
the trial court summarily granted IHCU’s motion. However, Grimes filed a Civ.R.
60(b) motion alleging that he had not been served with the motion for summary
judgment. IHCU agreed with Grimes’s motion, indicating Grimes had not been
served with the motion for summary judgment. On January 29, 2026, the trial court
filed an entry granting Grimes relief from judgment and providing him 28 days to
respond to IHCU’s motion for summary judgment.
{¶8} Grimes did file a responsive pleading to IHCU’s summary judgment
motion, arguing that IHCU had not provided a complete accounting and arguing
-3- Case No. 17-26-08
that the affidavit contained conclusory statements about the amount Grimes owed.
Further, Grimes claimed that his vehicle had been repossessed and IHCU had not
provided a date of disposition or a sale price. Although Grimes made numerous
claims in his responsive pleading, he did not include any actual evidence or even an
affidavit to support his position.
{¶9} IHCU filed a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment
indicating IHCU had not repossessed Grimes’s vehicle, so there had been no sale of
Grimes’s vehicle. IHCU reiterated that it had attached the full accounting details of
Grimes’s account, including the last transaction, which was the $5 payment.
{¶10} On March 19, 2026, the trial court filed a final judgment entry granting
summary judgment to IHCU. It is from this judgment that Grimes appeals, asserting
the following assignments of error for our review.
First Assignment of Error
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment where genuine issues of material fact exist.
Second Assignment of Error
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment where Plaintiff failed to meet its initial burden under Civ.R. 56 and Dresher v. Burt.
{¶11} As both assignments of error largely address the same issues, we will
address the assignments of error together.
-4- Case No. 17-26-08
First and Second Assignments of Error
{¶12} In Grimes’s assignments of error, he argues that the trial court erred
by granting summary judgment in favor of IHCU.1
Standard of Review
{¶13} Appellate courts conduct a de novo review of trial court decisions
granting a motion for summary judgment. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio
St.3d 102, 105 (1996). Thus, this Court must conduct an independent review of the
evidence and arguments that were before the trial court without deference to the trial
court’s decision. Tharp v. Whirlpool Corp., 2018-Ohio-1344, ¶ 23 (3d Dist.).
{¶14} Civ.R. 56(C) provides, in relevant part:
Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
{¶15} “When seeking summary judgment on grounds that the non-moving
party cannot prove its case, the moving party bears the initial burden of informing
the trial court of the basis for the motion and identifying those portions of the record
that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact on an essential
1 Grimes is proceeding pro se in his appeal, and his brief is, at best, minimally compliant with the appellate rules. His brief is primarily a collection of bullet points with no supporting arguments and minimal legal authority.
-5- Case No. 17-26-08
element of the non-moving party’s claims.” Lundeen v. Graff, 2015–Ohio–4462, ¶
11 (10th Dist.), citing Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 293 (1996). “Once the
moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmovant must set forth specific facts
demonstrating a genuine issue for trial.” Id., citing Dresher at 293.
{¶16} “Trial courts should award summary judgment with caution, being
careful to resolve doubts and construe evidence in favor of the nonmoving party.”
Welco Industries, Inc. v. Applied Cos., 67 Ohio St.3d 344, 346 (1993), citing
Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356, 604 (1992). “Nevertheless, summary
judgment is appropriate where a [party] fails to produce evidence supporting the
essentials of its claim.” Id., citing Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd. of Texas, 59 Ohio
St.3d 108 (1991), paragraph three of the syllabus.
Analysis
{¶17} It is undisputed that Grimes entered into a retail installment contract
and security agreement on November 15, 2018. The evidence presented by IHCU
established that Grimes defaulted on making his payments and that the outstanding
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as IH Credit Union v. Grimes, 2026-Ohio-2561.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT SHELBY COUNTY
IH CREDIT UNION, CASE NO. 17-26-08 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
ANTHONY S. GRIMES, OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Sidney Municipal Court Trial Court No. 25CVF01047
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: July 6, 2026
APPEARANCES:
Anthony S. Grimes Appellant
Allen Reis for Appellee Case No. 17-26-08
WALDICK, J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Anthony S. Grimes (“Grimes”), brings this appeal
from the March 19, 2026 judgment of the Sidney Municipal Court. On appeal,
Grimes argues that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of
plaintiff-appellee, IH Credit Union (“IHCU”). For the reasons that follow, we affirm
the judgment of the trial court.
Background
{¶2} On November 15, 2018, Grimes entered into a contract for the purchase
of a Nissan Altima. The contract was assigned to IHCU, which financed the
purchase. The contract required payments of $331.30 for a period of 48 months
beginning December 30, 2018.
{¶3} For eight months, Grimes made payments to IHCU on the vehicle as
scheduled. After those initial eight months of consistent payments, Grimes became
more erratic in making his payments. Beginning in 2020, Grimes made only a
handful of payments at or above the contractual payment amount. Grimes’s last
credited payment on the vehicle was on April 21, 2021, in the amount of $5.
{¶4} On September 29, 2025, IHCU filed a “Complaint for Money” against
Grimes in the Sidney Municipal Court. IHCU alleged that Grimes defaulted under
the terms of the agreement. IHCU alleged that the remaining balance on Grimes’s
loan was $6,256.14 with accrued interest of $3,902.04. The sales contract -2- Case No. 17-26-08
specifically called for an interest rate of 11.79%. IHCU attached a copy of the sales
contract and a copy of the payment history of Grimes.
{¶5} On October 15, 2025, Grimes filed an answer, pro se, admitting that he
executed the retail installment contract, but denying that IHCU was the lawful
owner of the contract. Grimes also admitted that he made payments under the
contract until “approximately the time of his arrest and incarceration.” (Doc. No. 5).
He argued he did not refuse to pay and that any missed payments were the result of
circumstances beyond his control.
{¶6} On November 19, 2025, IHCU filed a motion for summary judgment
arguing that Grimes had effectively admitted that he owed IHCU the money. IHCU
attached an affidavit to its motion for summary judgment from an IHCU custodian
of records indicating Grimes was in default.
{¶7} After Grimes did not respond to IHCU’s motion for summary judgment,
the trial court summarily granted IHCU’s motion. However, Grimes filed a Civ.R.
60(b) motion alleging that he had not been served with the motion for summary
judgment. IHCU agreed with Grimes’s motion, indicating Grimes had not been
served with the motion for summary judgment. On January 29, 2026, the trial court
filed an entry granting Grimes relief from judgment and providing him 28 days to
respond to IHCU’s motion for summary judgment.
{¶8} Grimes did file a responsive pleading to IHCU’s summary judgment
motion, arguing that IHCU had not provided a complete accounting and arguing
-3- Case No. 17-26-08
that the affidavit contained conclusory statements about the amount Grimes owed.
Further, Grimes claimed that his vehicle had been repossessed and IHCU had not
provided a date of disposition or a sale price. Although Grimes made numerous
claims in his responsive pleading, he did not include any actual evidence or even an
affidavit to support his position.
{¶9} IHCU filed a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment
indicating IHCU had not repossessed Grimes’s vehicle, so there had been no sale of
Grimes’s vehicle. IHCU reiterated that it had attached the full accounting details of
Grimes’s account, including the last transaction, which was the $5 payment.
{¶10} On March 19, 2026, the trial court filed a final judgment entry granting
summary judgment to IHCU. It is from this judgment that Grimes appeals, asserting
the following assignments of error for our review.
First Assignment of Error
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment where genuine issues of material fact exist.
Second Assignment of Error
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment where Plaintiff failed to meet its initial burden under Civ.R. 56 and Dresher v. Burt.
{¶11} As both assignments of error largely address the same issues, we will
address the assignments of error together.
-4- Case No. 17-26-08
First and Second Assignments of Error
{¶12} In Grimes’s assignments of error, he argues that the trial court erred
by granting summary judgment in favor of IHCU.1
Standard of Review
{¶13} Appellate courts conduct a de novo review of trial court decisions
granting a motion for summary judgment. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio
St.3d 102, 105 (1996). Thus, this Court must conduct an independent review of the
evidence and arguments that were before the trial court without deference to the trial
court’s decision. Tharp v. Whirlpool Corp., 2018-Ohio-1344, ¶ 23 (3d Dist.).
{¶14} Civ.R. 56(C) provides, in relevant part:
Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
{¶15} “When seeking summary judgment on grounds that the non-moving
party cannot prove its case, the moving party bears the initial burden of informing
the trial court of the basis for the motion and identifying those portions of the record
that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact on an essential
1 Grimes is proceeding pro se in his appeal, and his brief is, at best, minimally compliant with the appellate rules. His brief is primarily a collection of bullet points with no supporting arguments and minimal legal authority.
-5- Case No. 17-26-08
element of the non-moving party’s claims.” Lundeen v. Graff, 2015–Ohio–4462, ¶
11 (10th Dist.), citing Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 293 (1996). “Once the
moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmovant must set forth specific facts
demonstrating a genuine issue for trial.” Id., citing Dresher at 293.
{¶16} “Trial courts should award summary judgment with caution, being
careful to resolve doubts and construe evidence in favor of the nonmoving party.”
Welco Industries, Inc. v. Applied Cos., 67 Ohio St.3d 344, 346 (1993), citing
Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356, 604 (1992). “Nevertheless, summary
judgment is appropriate where a [party] fails to produce evidence supporting the
essentials of its claim.” Id., citing Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd. of Texas, 59 Ohio
St.3d 108 (1991), paragraph three of the syllabus.
Analysis
{¶17} It is undisputed that Grimes entered into a retail installment contract
and security agreement on November 15, 2018. The evidence presented by IHCU
established that Grimes defaulted on making his payments and that the outstanding
balance was $6,256.14. IHCU indicated that at the contractually agreed 11.79%
interest, Grimes owed an additional $3,902.04. IHCU supported its summary
judgment motion with a printout of Grimes’s payment history, a copy of the sales
contract, and an affidavit from a “duly authorized representative and keeper of the
records” for IHCU.
-6- Case No. 17-26-08
{¶18} Given the documentation that was produced, IHCU met its initial
burden to establish that it was entitled to summary judgment in this matter. The
burden then shifted to Grimes under, e.g. Dresher v. Burt, supra, to establish that a
genuine issue of material fact existed and that IHCU was not entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.
{¶19} In his responsive memorandum, Grimes made multiple claims, but he
provided no actual evidence to undermine IHCU’s position. Grimes did not produce
any documentation disputing the amount that he owed or to whom it was owed.
Generally, unsupported conclusory assertions are not sufficient to meet the
nomovant’s burden to set forth specific facts to show that a genuine issue of material
fact exists. Knab v. Washington Cnty. Bd. of Commrs., 2024-Ohio-1569, ¶ 40 (4th
Dist.). Further, it is well-settled “that resting on mere allegations against a motion
for summary judgment . . . is insufficient.” Jackson v. Alert Fire and Safety
Equipment, Inc. 58 Ohio St.3d 48, 52 (1991). Thus, Grimes presented no evidence
whatsoever contradicting IHCU’s case.
{¶20} Grimes argues on appeal that his car was repossessed by IHCU and
IHCU never provided any documentation of disposition. IHCU contends in its brief
that it had attempted to repossess the subject vehicle on a prior occasion, but was
unable to do so. However, IHCU stated in its brief that it had acquired “Collateral
Protection Insurance” to protect its interest in the vehicle it could not locate, and the
insurer paid proceeds pursuant to the policy in the amount of $3,862.50. IHCU
-7- Case No. 17-26-08
indicated that the amount received from the insurer was taken and used to reduce
Grimes’s balance. This is reflected on the accounting provided.
{¶21} IHCU claims in its brief that the insurer “independently located and
took possession of the vehicle pursuant to its own contractual and subrogation
rights,” thus any claims Grimes made regarding repossession were attacking the
wrong party. Both parties’ arguments regarding repossession of the vehicle are
based entirely on their arguments in their appellate briefs rather than the actual
evidence that was in the record before the trial court. We have no evidence in the
record before us of repossession of the vehicle by any person or entity or any
subsequent sale of the vehicle. Thus any arguments related to repossession are not
well-taken because they are unsupported by actual evidence in the record. See Fifth
Third v. Martinez, 2025-Ohio-1893, ¶ 14 (3d Dist.).
{¶22} In this case the trial court was presented evidence of a contractual
agreement, a default on that agreement, and the amount owed pursuant to an account
history and a contractually-agreed upon interest rate. Grimes has presented nothing
of evidentiary value to contradict IHCU’s case, thus we do not find that the trial
court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of IHCU. For these reasons,
Grimes’s first and second assignments of error are overruled.
-8- Case No. 17-26-08
Conclusion
{¶23} Having found no error prejudicial to Grimes in the particulars assigned
and argued, his assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the Sidney
Municipal Court is affirmed.
ZIMMERMAN, P.J. and WILLAMOWSKI, J., concur.
-9- Case No. 17-26-08
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the opinion of this Court, the assignments of error
are overruled and it is the judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the
trial court is affirmed with costs assessed to Appellant for which judgment is hereby
rendered. The cause is hereby remanded to the trial court for execution of the
judgment for costs.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of this Court certify a copy of this Court’s
judgment entry and opinion to the trial court as the mandate prescribed by App.R.
27; and serve a copy of this Court’s judgment entry and opinion on each party to the
proceedings and note the date of service in the docket. See App.R. 30.
Juergen A. Waldick, Judge
William R. Zimmerman, Judge
John R. Willamowski, Judge
DATED: /jlm
-10-