[Cite as LVNV Funding, L.L.C. v. Moore, 2026-Ohio-3583.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LAKE COUNTY
LVNV FUNDING, L.L.C., CASE NO. 2026-L-0031
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Civil Appeal from the
- vs - Willoughby Municipal Court
NICOLE MOORE,
Trial Court No. 2025 CVF 06211
Defendant-Appellant.
OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
Decided: September 14, 2026
Judgment: Affirmed
Tyler D. Houston and David B. Bokor, Stenger & Stenger, P.L.L.C., 2618 East Paris Avenue, S.E., Grand Rapids, MI 49546 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).
Nicole Moore, pro se, 29860 Phillips Avenue, Wickliffe, OH 44092 (DefendantAppellant).
JOHN J. EKLUND, J.
{¶1} Appellant, Nicole Moore, appeals the judgment of the Willoughby Municipal
Court granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee, LVNV Funding, L.L.C.
{¶2} Appellant has raised four assignments of error arguing that the trial court
erred by granting summary judgment because Appellee filed its Motion for Summary
Judgment on the day of trial and she was denied due process. She also argues that
Appellee failed to establish it was the real party in interest that held the debt Appellant
allegedly owed.
{¶3} Having reviewed the record and the applicable caselaw, we find Appellant’s
assignments of error are without merit. Appellee requested leave to file its Motion for
Summary Judgment, and Appellant did not object to granting leave. The trial court
provided 28 days for Appellant to respond to Appellee’s motion. Therefore, Appellant did
not suffer an abridgment of her due process rights. Next, Appellee provided an affidavit
and several exhibits, all of which were properly authenticated and which established that
Appellee was the owner of the debt Appellant owed.
{¶4} Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the Willoughby Municipal Court.
Substantive and Procedural History
{¶5} On June 23, 2025, Appellee filed a Complaint for one count of Nonpayment
of Account and one count of Unjust Enrichment against Appellant. Appellee alleged that
Appellant used an account with Credit One Bank, N.A. (“Credit One”) and defaulted on
her repayment obligations by failing to repay the balance of $1,384.98. Appellee alleged
that the loan had been assigned to it and was therefore entitled to recover the balance.
{¶6} On July 30, 2025, Appellant filed her Anwer.
{¶7} On July 30, 2025, the trial court issued a scheduling order with a dispositive
motion deadline of October 30, 2025, and a trial date of January 5, 2026.
{¶8} On October 30, 2025, Appellant filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Standing and Improper Assignment.
{¶9} On January 5, 2026, Appellee filed a Motion for Continuance of Trial and
filed a Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment Instanter with an attached
Motion for Summary Judgment.
PAGE 2 OF 12
Case No. 2026-L-0031
{¶10} On January 7, 2026, the magistrate issued a Magistrate’s Order addressing
the following: first, the Magistrate’s Order denied Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss; second,
“[u]pon agreement of the parties,” the Magistrate’s Order granted Appellee’s Motions to
Continue and to file its Motion for Summary Judgment Instanter; third, Appellee’s Motion
for Summary Judgment was accepted instanter and Appellant was granted 28 days from
the date of the order to respond; and fourth, the trial was continued to March 23, 2026.
{¶11} Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment included an affidavit from
Aviyana Lane-Suber, an Authorized Representative for Appellee. Lane-Suber
represented that Credit One originally extended credit to Appellant on December 22,
2020. After this, the business records associated with Appellant’s debt were sold and/or
assigned to Appellee on May 15, 2023.
{¶12} Also attached were the following documents authenticated by Lane-Suber
as true and correct business documents:
{¶13} Exhibit A: Appellant’s Transaction History, comprising monthly billing
history for an account ending in 6851 from Credit One to Appellant between April 7, 2021,
through April 6, 2023. These documents indicate that Appellant accrued a balance of
$1,384.98 on the account.
{¶14} Exhibit B: Seller Data Document and Chain of Title, reflecting that on
April 30, 2023, Credit One assigned charged-off credit card accounts to MHC
Receivables, L.L.C. Those charged-off credit card accounts were identified on an account
level basis in a file named CreditOne_Fresh_Resurgent_052023. The account schedule
contained Appellant’s credit card account number ending in 6851, provided her full name
PAGE 3 OF 12
Case No. 2026-L-0031
and address, account balance of $1,384.98, the dates of her last purchase and payment,
as well as other individualized identifying information.
{¶15} On May 15, 2023, the following transfers took place: MHC Receivables,
L.L.C. assigned the CreditOne_Fresh_Resurgent_052023 account to FNBM, L.L.C.
FNBM, L.L.C. then assigned Appellant’s account to Credit Asset Sales L.L.C. After this,
Credit Asset Sales, L.L.C. assigned the account to Resurgent Acquisitions, L.L.C. Finally,
Resurgent Acquisitions, L.L.C. assigned the account to Appellee.
{¶16} Exhibit C: Terms and Conditions, providing the Card Agreement for
Appellant’s Credit One account.
{¶17} On February 2, 2026, Appellant filed a Motion to Strike Appellant’s Motion
for Summary Judgment. The motion asserted that Appellee’s Motion for Summary
Judgment was improperly filed on the day of trial and the motion failed to comply with
Civ.R. 56(E) requiring supporting affidavits to be made on personal knowledge, by a
competent affiant, and based on admissible facts. Appellant asserted, with no supporting
evidence, that Appellee had failed to establish a proper chain of assignment and failed to
establish proof of the alleged debt.
{¶18} On February 9, 2026, the magistrate issued a Magistrate’s Order denying
Appellant’s Motion to Strike because, despite being procedurally improper, Appellant
“indicated that she had no objection” to Appellee requesting leave to file its Motion for
Summary Judgment and continuing the trial.
{¶19} The Magistrate’s Order found no prejudice to Appellant because the trial
court granted 28 days for her to respond to Appellee’s motion for Summary Judgment.
The Order also noted that Appellant had a discovery period to verify and examine
PAGE 4 OF 12
Case No. 2026-L-0031
Appellee’s claimed assignments of the debt and that any failure to do so or enforce
discovery rules was not caused by the court granting Appellee leave to file its Motion for
Summary Judgment.
{¶20} Finally, the Magistrate’s Order determined that the question of whether
Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment was properly supported by sufficient,
admissible evidence was not yet ripe.
{¶21} Appellant did not file a response in opposition to Appellee’s Motion for
Summary Judgment.
{¶22} On February 10, 2026, the magistrate issued a Magistrate’s Decision on
Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Although Appellant had not responded in
opposition, the magistrate considered the arguments Appellant had made in her Motion
to Strike. The Magistrate’s Decision found that Appellant had a credit card account with
Credit One, and that she eventually defaulted on her payments in the amount of
$1,384.98. In addition, the attached Bill of Sale and Assignment of Accounts and
supporting documentation established that the account was transferred from Credit One
through several intermediate companies, and finally to Appellee.
{¶23} The Magistrate’s Order noted that Appellant’s Motion to Strike was
supported by mere allegations or denials and contained no affidavit or exhibits. Because
of this, there was nothing demonstrating the existence of a material fact. Therefore, the
Magistrate’s Decision granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee.
{¶24} On February 11, 2026, the trial court adopted the Magistrate’s Decision and
provided 14 days for the parties to file objections.
PAGE 5 OF 12
Case No. 2026-L-0031
{¶25} On February 20, 2026, Appellant filed Objections to the Magistrate’s
Decision. She argued that genuine issues of material fact still existed because Appellee
had insufficiently authenticated its supporting documentation and did not establish
“account-level documentation” to establish that Appellee had validly received ownership
of her account.
{¶26} On March 3, 2026, the trial court issued a Judgment Entry overruling
Appellant’s objections, adopting the Magistrate’s Decision, and granting judgment in favor
of Appellee.
{¶27} Appellant timely appealed raising four assignments of error.
Standard of Review
{¶28} We review a trial court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Hapgood v.
Conrad, 2002-Ohio-3363, ¶ 13 (11th Dist.). “We review the trial court’s decision
independently and without deference, pursuant to the standards in Civ.R. 56(C).” Allen v.
5125 Peno, L.L.C., 2017-Ohio-8941, ¶ 6 (11th Dist.).
{¶29} Summary judgment is appropriate when (1) no genuine issue as to any
material fact exists; (2) the party moving for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law; and (3) viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving
party, reasonable minds can reach only one conclusion and it is adverse to the nonmoving
party. Holliman v. Allstate Ins. Co. Corp., 1999-Ohio-116, ¶ 6. The initial burden is on the
moving party to set forth specific facts demonstrating that no issue of material fact exists
and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Dresher v. Burt, 1996-Ohio-107, ¶ 18. If the movant meets this burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party
to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists for trial. Id.
PAGE 6 OF 12
Case No. 2026-L-0031
Assignments of Error and Analysis
{¶30} Appellant’s first assignment of error states: “The trial court erred in granting
summary judgment when the motion was filed on the day of trial, violating due process.”
{¶31} Civ.R. 56(A) provides in part: “A party may move for summary judgment at
any time after the expiration of the time permitted under these rules for a responsive
motion or pleading by the adverse party, or after service of a motion for summary
judgment by the adverse party. If the action has been set for pretrial or trial, a motion for
summary judgment may be made only with leave of court.”
{¶32} In this case, Appellee filed a Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary
Judgment Instanter and attached its Motion for Summary Judgment. Appellee
acknowledges that it filed its motion outside the time for filing for summary judgment.
However, it requested leave of court to do so. According to the Magistrate’s Order
granting leave of court, Appellant “indicated that she had no objection” to granting
Appellee leave to file. If this was not accurate or if Appellant did have an objection to
granting Appellee leave to file, then Appellant should have filed a motion to set aside the
Magistrate’s Order. See Civ.R. 53(D)(2)(b). Appellant did not do so and is precluded from
raising this issue on appeal. See Miller v. Miller, 2025-Ohio-1923, ¶ 11 (5th Dist.).
{¶33} Next, the trial court granted Appellant 28 days in which to respond to
Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Appellant failed to do so. However, the trial
court nevertheless considered the arguments in Appellant’s Motion to Strike to the extent
those arguments touched on the merits of Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Appellant had adequate notice and opportunity to be heard.
{¶34} Accordingly, Appellant’s first assignment of error is without merit.
PAGE 7 OF 12
Case No. 2026-L-0031
{¶35} We address Appellant’s second through fourth assignments of error
together.
{¶36} Appellant’s second assignment of error states: “The trial court erred where
genuine issues of material fact exist.”
{¶37} Appellant’s third assignment of error states: “The trial court erred where
Appellee failed to meet its burden under Civ.R. 56.”
{¶38} Appellant’s fourth assignment of error states: “The trial court erred in
granting judgment where Appellee failed to establish standing.”
{¶39} Appellant argues under each of these assignments of error that Appellee
has failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish ownership of the claimed debt and
therefore lacks standing as a real party in interest to establish its ownership of her debt.
She argues that a generalized bill of sale that does not specifically identify the account is
insufficient to prove the assignment of a debt. Appellant does not argue that she did not
owe the debt.
{¶40} Appellee attached an affidavit and Exhibits A, B, and C to its Motion for
Summary Judgment. Civ.R. 56(E) provides that “[s]upporting and opposing affidavits shall
be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in
evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters
stated in the affidavit.”
{¶41} In order to be considered evidentiary documents, the evidentiary materials
that Appellee attached to its motion must satisfy any applicable rules of evidence,
including the rule against hearsay and authentication. See Evid.R. 801 and 802; Evid.R.
901.
PAGE 8 OF 12
Case No. 2026-L-0031
{¶42} One exception to the hearsay rule is the business records exception. See
Evid.R. 803(6). To satisfy the business record exception of the hearsay rule, a business
record must (1) be one regularly recorded in a regularly conducted activity; (2) have been
entered by a person with knowledge of the act; (3) have been recorded at or near the time
of the transaction; and (4) have a foundation laid by the custodian of records or some
other qualified witness. State v. Hood, 2012-Ohio-6208, ¶ 39.
{¶43} In addition, documents must be properly authenticated. “The requirement
of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by
evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent
claims.” Evid.R. 901(A). “‘This low threshold standard does not require conclusive proof
of authenticity, but only sufficient foundational evidence for the trier of fact to conclude
that the document is what its proponent claims it to be.’” (Emphasis deleted.) State v.
Miller, 2015-Ohio-956, ¶ 21 (11th Dist.), quoting State v. Easter, 75 Ohio App.3d 22, 25
(4th Dist. 1991). Authenticity may be demonstrated through direct or circumstantial
evidence. State v. Jaskiewicz, 2013-Ohio-4552, ¶ 12 (11th Dist.).
{¶44} The affidavit attached to Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment stated
that Lane-Suber was an authorized representative for Appellee and that she had personal
knowledge of the documents attached as Exhibits A, B, and C. That affidavit indicated
that the documents were kept in the regular course of business and were
contemporaneously kept and maintained. The affidavit stated that Appellee regularly
acquires revolving credit accounts and when it does so,
includes information provided by the original creditor and/or its successorsin-interest. Such information includes the debtor’s name and social security
number, the account balance, the identity of the original creditor and the
PAGE 9 OF 12
Case No. 2026-L-0031
account number. These records have been integrated into the regular
business records of [Appellee] and relied upon by [Appellee].
{¶45} The affidavit and attached documents satisfied the requirements of Evid.R.
901 and 803(6) and may appropriately be considered in reviewing Appellee’s Motion for
Summary Judgment.
{¶46} The specific information in Appellee’s materials also supports the
conclusion that Appellee is entitled to summary judgment. Appellee provided information
that detailed Appellant’s credit card agreement, as well as the account statements and
billing history. As noted above, Appellant does not contend that she failed to pay the
balance on her Credit One account.
{¶47} Next, Appellee’s material in Exhibit B details the assignments of a group of
charged-off credit card accounts from Credit One through several intermediate assignees
and finally to Appellee. The charged-off credit card account file contained an account
schedule with all pertinent information necessary to specifically identify Appellant as the
cardholder and establishing that she had an unpaid account balance of $1,384.98. This
information satisfied Appellee’s initial burden under Civ.R. 56 to set forth specific facts
demonstrating no issue of material fact exists.
{¶48} Appellant’s Motion to Strike did not carry her reciprocal burden to provide
specific facts demonstrating any issue of material fact. Her Motion to Strike contained
bare assertions and allegations and did not contain any evidence to demonstrate a triable
issue of fact.
{¶49} Based on our de novo review, we find no error in the trial court granting
summary judgment in favor of Appellee.
{¶50} Accordingly, Appellant’s assignments of error are without merit.
PAGE 10 OF 12
Case No. 2026-L-0031
{¶51} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Willoughby Municipal Court
is affirmed.
EUGENE A. LUCCI, J.,
SCOTT LYNCH, J.,
concur.
PAGE 11 OF 12
Case No. 2026-L-0031
JUDGMENT ENTRY
For the reasons stated in the opinion of this court, Appellant’s assignments of
error are without merit. It is the judgment and order of this court that the judgment of
the Willoughby Municipal Court is affirmed.
Costs to be taxed against Appellant.
JUDGE JOHN J. EKLUND
JUDGE EUGENE A. LUCCI,
concurs
JUDGE SCOTT LYNCH,
concurs
THIS DOCUMENT CONSTITUTES A FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate
pursuant to Rule 27 of the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure.
PAGE 12 OF 12
Case No. 2026-L-0031