Julianne Johnson v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: June 14, 2017
• Docket: 32A05-1611-CC-2570
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED regarded as precedent or cited before any Jun 14 2017, 9:50 am court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals estoppel, or the law of the case. and Tax Court

APPELLANT PRO SE ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Julianne Johnson Ross J. Lerch Plainfield, Indiana Fenton & McGarvey Law Firm, P.S.C. Louisville, Kentucky

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Julianne Johnson, June 14, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 32A05-1611-CC-2570 v. Appeal from the Hendricks Superior Court Portfolio Recovery Associates, The Honorable Stephenie LeMay- LLC, Luken, Judge Appellee-Plaintiff Trial Court Cause No. 32D05-1603-CC-280

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1611-CC-2570 | June 14, 2017 Page 1 of 4 Case Summary [1] Julianne Johnson appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor

of Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. Finding no error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [2] In February 2013 Johnson opened a credit-card account with Synchrony Bank.

The card was labeled as an Amazon.com credit card. Johnson used the credit

card and received multiple statements from Synchrony Bank. The account

statement with a closing date of September 26, 2014, showed that $50 had been

paid toward Johnson’s outstanding balance. The account statement with a

closing date of November 27, 2014, showed that Johnson had an outstanding

balance of $738.02. One month later, Synchrony Bank sold Johnson’s debt to

Portfolio.

[3] Portfolio filed suit against Johnson in March 2016 for the outstanding balance.

In July, Portfolio sent Johnson discovery requests, including requests for

admission pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 36(A). The requests for admission

included statements that the underlying debt was Johnson’s, that the account

statements sent by Synchrony Bank to Johnson were authentic, and that the

outstanding balance was owed to Portfolio. Appellee’s App. pp. 23-25.

Johnson did not respond, so the matters set forth were deemed admitted

pursuant to Trial Rule 36(A). Furthermore, Johnson did not seek to withdraw

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1611-CC-2570 | June 14, 2017 Page 2 of 4 her admissions under subsection (B) of the rule. Portfolio then moved for

summary judgment, which the trial court granted.

[4] Johnson now appeals.

Discussion and Decision [5] We review the trial court’s summary judgment order de novo. Hughley v. State,

15 N.E.3d 1000, 1003 (Ind. 2014). Summary judgment is appropriate if there is

“no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment

as a matter of law.” Ind. Trial Rule 56(C). The moving party bears the burden

to make a prima facie showing that these two requirements have been met.

Interstate Cold Storage, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 720 N.E.2d 727, 729 (Ind. Ct.

App. 1999), trans. denied. If the moving party establishes its prima facie case,

the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to “set

forth specifically designated facts showing that there is a genuine issue for

trial.” Id.

[6] Indiana Trial Rule 36 permits parties to serve one another with requests for

admission. If a party does not respond to a request for admission, that matter is

deemed admitted. “However, a party who made admissions by failing to

respond may move to withdraw those admissions pursuant to [Trial Rule] 36.”

Larson v. Karagan, 979 N.E.2d 655, 660 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Any matter

admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion

permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission.” Ind. Trial Rule 36(B).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1611-CC-2570 | June 14, 2017 Page 3 of 4 [7] Johnson challenges the authenticity of the billing statements and the assignment

of the outstanding balance to Portfolio. In its requests for admission, Portfolio

specifically asked about the authenticity of the billing statements and the

assignment of the debt to Portfolio. Johnson did not answer the requests, and

she never asked the court to withdraw her admissions. The issues Johnson

raises were conclusively established when she failed to respond to Portfolio’s

requests for admission and did not ask the trial court to withdraw her

admissions. The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of

Portfolio.1

[8] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Robb, J., concur.

1 Johnson also challenges the sufficiency of an affidavit Portfolio submitted regarding its ownership of the debt. We do not address this argument as Johnson admitted Portfolio’s ownership of the debt when she failed to answer the requests for admission. See Appellee’s App. pp. 23-25 (“Request No. 11: That all charges, interest, fees, and penalties assessed to the account are due and payable to Plaintiff. Request No. 12: That Defendant is responsible to Plaintiff for the principal amount of $738.02 plus court costs.”).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 32A05-1611-CC-2570 | June 14, 2017 Page 4 of 4