Capital One, N.A. v. Campbell

2026-Ohio-1 · Ohio Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, Montgomery County · January 2, 2026 · No. 30577

Summary

The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Capital One in a credit-card account action seeking $7,671.42 from Dave R. Campbell Sr. The court rejected Campbell’s procedural, discovery, due-process, payment, and counterclaim arguments, characterizing his bills-of-exchange and Cestui Que Vie theories as frivolous. The court held that Capital One adequately proved the account and that Campbell failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact.

Holdings

  1. Although Campbell failed to comply with App.R. 16(A), the court exercised its discretion in the interests of justice to consider the arguments that could be deciphered.
  2. Campbell was not entitled to relaxed procedural standards or special treatment because he represented himself.
  3. The trial court did not err in denying Campbell's discovery-related motions or violate his due-process rights.
  4. Capital One was entitled to summary judgment because it authenticated the governing customer agreement and account statements establishing the amount due, while Campbell failed to identify a genuine issue of material fact or submit proper evidence.
  5. No error or plain error occurred in granting summary judgment to Capital One.
  6. Campbell's defenses and counterclaim, which were based on purported bills of exchange, the English Bills of Exchange Act, and the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, were frivolous and did not defeat Capital One's claim.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the appellate court should consider Campbell's arguments despite his failure to identify assignments of error and otherwise comply with App.R. 16(A).
  2. Whether the trial court erred by denying Campbell's motions, including his discovery motions and motions to submit evidence.
  3. Whether Campbell was denied due process.
  4. Whether Capital One established its claim on the credit-card account and was entitled to summary judgment.
  5. Whether the trial court properly dismissed Campbell's counterclaim with prejudice.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (34)

  • State v. Huelsman, 2023-Ohio-649, ¶ 7 (2d Dist.)(followed)
  • State v. Mize, 2022-Ohio-3163, ¶ 77 (2d Dist.)(followed)
  • Ransom v. Aldi, Inc., 2017-Ohio-6993, ¶ 23 (2d Dist.)(followed)
  • Yocum v. Means, 2002-Ohio-3803, ¶ 20 (2d Dist.)(followed)
  • Kilroy v. B.H. Lakeshore Co., 111 Ohio App.3d 357, 363 (8th Dist. 1996)(followed)
  • Elyria Sav. & Banking Co. v. Walker Bin Co., 92 Ohio St. 406, 408 (1915)(followed)
  • Davis v. ACEF Martin Folsom LLC, 2023 WL 8477987, *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2023)(persuasive)
  • Griffin v. Gen. Elec. Credit Union, 2023 WL 5955735, *3-4 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 13, 2023)(persuasive)
  • Donald Sullivan, LLC v. Mackey, 2025-Ohio-1903, ¶¶ 2, 8 (11th Dist.)(persuasive)
  • In re S.H.O., 2019-Ohio-645, ¶¶ 5-6, 16 (2d Dist.)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 34.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Court Of Appeals Second Appellate District Montgomery County Ohio Court Of Appeals Second Appel