Automated Summary
Key Facts
This appeal concerns a collection action on a Promissory Note between Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC (BHG) and Stephen M. Pozycki. BHG filed a complaint on September 25, 2024, alleging the appellant entered into a Promissory Note agreeing to repay $54,080.00 plus interest. The appellant failed to respond to BHG's requests for admission served on December 20, 2024, and did not respond to the motion for summary judgment filed on February 20, 2025. The trial court granted summary judgment on May 1, 2025, finding the appellant in breach of the Promissory Note based on deemed admissions from the unanswered requests for admission. The appellant appeals, arguing the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on deemed admissions when the requests for admission were not received. The appellant is proceeding pro se.
Transaction Type
Promissory Note collection case involving loan agreement for $54,080.00 plus interest
Issues
Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff based on deemed admissions from unanswered requests for admission under Civ.R. 36(A), and whether the appellant's claim that they never received the requests for admission was properly waived by failing to raise it at trial.
Holdings
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC, holding that the defendant's failure to respond to requests for admissions under Civ.R. 36(A) constituted deemed admissions, and the defendant waived his argument that he never received the requests by failing to raise it at the trial court level.
Remedies
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC, awarding judgment for $49,770.87 plus interest at 8% per annum from the date of the judgment entry, and court costs.
Contract Value
54080.00
Monetary Damages
49770.87
Legal Principles
- Summary judgment is appropriate only when the moving party demonstrates: (1) no genuine issue of material fact exists, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion adverse to the nonmoving party. The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion and identifying portions of the record demonstrating absence of a genuine issue of material fact. If the moving party satisfies this burden, the nonmoving party must respond with specific facts demonstrating a genuine issue exists for trial.
- Under Civ.R. 36, a party's failure to timely respond to a request for admissions constitutes a conclusive admission of the matter contained in the request. Unanswered requests for admission are the equivalent of written admissions for purposes of Civ.R. 56(C) summary judgment motions. A party cannot give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless the party states that reasonable inquiry was made and information is insufficient. Pro se litigants are held to the same standard as represented litigants and cannot expect special treatment.
- Parties cannot raise new issues for the first time on appeal; failure to raise an issue at the trial level waives it on appeal. The record must show when arguments were or were not presented to the trial court to determine whether waiver occurred.
Precedent Name
- Dresher v. Burt
- Johnson v. Levy
- Cleveland Trust Co. v. Willis
- Progressive Direct Ins. Co. v. Harrison
Cited Statute
Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure
Judge Name
- Judge Edelstein, concurring
- Judge Beatty Blunt
- Judge Mentel, concurring
Passage Text
- "Here, because appellant neither responded to BHG's requests for admissions nor sought relief from admission under Civ.R. 36, he conceded that he was in breach of the Promissory Note for failure to pay according to its terms. He further conceded that the balance due to BHG from appellant on the Promissory Note is $49,770.87."
- "Having overruled appellant's sole assignment of error, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. Judgment affirmed."
- "Unanswered requests for admission, because the matter involved is deemed admitted, are the equivalent of written admissions for purposes of Civ.R. 56(C). Thus, a court may rely on unanswered requests for admissions to grant a Civ.R. 56 motion for summary judgment."
Damages / Relief Type
Compensatory damages in the form of judgment for $49,770.87 plus interest at 8% per annum and court costs