Discover Bank v. Bailey
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Discover Bank v. Bailey, 2013-Ohio-1809.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Discover Bank, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : v. : Jovita Bailey, : Defendant-Appellant. No. 12AP-1001 (C.P.C. No. 12 CVH 56956) (REGULAR CALENDAR) : D E C I S I O N Rendered on May 2, 2013 Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co. L.P.A., and Matthew G. Burg, for appellee. Jovita Bailey, pro se. APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas TYACK, J. {¶ 1} Jovita Bailey is appealing from the judgment rendered against her as a result of her credit card debt to Discover Bank. She assigns two errors for our consideration: I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR AS A MATTER OF LAW IN ITS JUDGMENT ENTRY OF NOVEMBER 7, 2012 GRANTING DISCOVER BANK'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN EGREGIOUSLY AND FLAGRANTLY IGNORING THE "ORIGINAL CASE SCHEDULE" TO THE PREJUDICE OF No. 12AP-1001 2 THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT THEREBY DEPRIVING HER THE FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE ASSURED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. {¶ 2} As indicated above, the judgment against Jovita Bailey resulted from the granting of a motion for summary judgment. Her primary assertion, which was raised after judgment had been granted and a garnishment pursued, was that Discover Bank had not complied with the requirements of Ohio law for a bank chartered in another state to do business in Ohio. Bailey raised this issue too late to have it considered in the trial court before judgment was granted. We cannot fault the trial court for failing to consider an issue not raised. {¶ 3} The first assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 4} The second assignment of error argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment before the deadline for discovery had passed. The Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure have provisions that allow a party who is defending against a motion for summary judgment to delay a ruling on the motion for summary judgment until additional discovery can be completed. See Civ.R. 56(F). Bailey did not use Civ.R. 56(F). {¶ 5} Bailey claims she was blindsided by the trial court's ruling. Her claim apparently results from her lack of knowledge of the local rules for the court of common pleas for Franklin County. Those rules set forth the time schedule to be applied by the trial court for ruling on motions for summary judgment. The trial court judge did not err in applying the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedures and the local rules. {¶ 6} The second assignment of error is overruled. No. 12AP-1001 3 {¶ 7} Both assignments of error having been overruled, the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. DORRIAN and McCORMAC, JJ., concur. McCORMAC, J., retired, formerly of the Tenth Appellate District, assigned to active duty under the authority of Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 6(C).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
