[Cite as Portfolio Recovery Assoc. v. Gallabrese, 2026-Ohio-4039.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JEFFERSON COUNTY
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW R. GALLABRESE,
Defendant-Appellant.
O P I NI ON A N D J U D G M E N T E NT RY
Case No. 26 JE 0005
Civil Appeal from the
Steubenville Municipal Court of Jefferson County, Ohio
Case No. 25-CVH-156
BEFORE:
Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Mark A. Hanni, Judges.
JUDGMENT:
Affirmed.
Atty. Roy J. Schechter, Weltman, Weinberg & Reis, Co., L.P.A., for Plaintiff-Appellee
Matthew R. Gallabrese, Pro se, Defendant-Appellant
Dated: October 7, 2026
[Cite as Portfolio Recovery Assoc. v. Gallabrese, 2026-Ohio-4039.]
WAITE, P.J.
{¶1} Pro se Appellant Matthew R. Gallabrese appeals the judgment of the
Steubenville Municipal Court granting summary judgment to Appellee Portfolio Recovery
Associates in a case involving the collection of credit card debt. Appellee presented
evidence establishing the debt, that Appellant was in default, that the debt was assigned
to Appellee, and the amount of the debt. Appellant failed to present any evidence
opposing Appellee’s motion for summary judgment, and agrees that Appellee has
presented a prima facie case for collection of a debt. Although he raises 12 assignments
of error, few are supported by any argument and none are supported by evidence in the
record. Appellant’s assignments of error are overruled and the judgment of the trial court
is affirmed.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶2} Appellant had a Mastercard credit card account with Barclays Bank
(“Barclays”). He defaulted on his payments, and the debt was sold to Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC (Appellee). The amount due and owing was $6,440.86. Appellee filed
a complaint for collection of the debt in the Steubenville Municipal Court on March 26,
2025. Appellant represented himself in the matter. On November 19, 2025 Appellant filed
a motion to compel discovery of documents relating to the terms of the sale of the debt to
Appellee in a “forward flow” agreement. Appellee opposed the motion on the grounds that
the amount Appellee paid for the assignment of the debt was irrelevant to the case and
that the forward flow agreement contained proprietary information. The court denied the
motion to compel.
[Cite as Portfolio Recovery Assoc. v. Gallabrese, 2026-Ohio-4039.]
{¶3} On December 4, 2025 Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment.
Attached to the motion was an affidavit of Appellee’s records custodian along with: the
bill of sale of the Barclays account to Appellee; the assignment and assumption
agreement; the amount of the debt; the record of the default; account information with
Appellant’s name, address, and account number; the last payment amount; the charge
off amount; the balance due when Appellee assumed the debt; a letter notifying Appellant
of the assignment; and three years of account statements.
{¶4} On December 31, 2025 Appellant filed a response to the motion for summary
judgment, but he attached no evidence that could be considered in opposition to the
motion pursuant to the rules of procedure. The court held a hearing on the motion on
February 2, 2026 for the parties to make their arguments to the court. No witnesses were
called, as it was a hearing only to offer argument in regard to summary judgment filings.
The court granted Appellee’s motion for summary judgment on February 4, 2026.
{¶5} On March 4, 2026 Appellant filed a motion for a “new trial.” The court
dismissed the motion the same day on the grounds that Civ.R. 59 was inapplicable, as
there had been no trial and the case had been resolved in summary judgment.
{¶6} Appellant filed a timely appeal of the February 4, 2026 judgment on March
5, 2026. He has not filed an appeal of the denial of his motion for new trial. He attempts
to raise 12 assignments of error on appeal. Appellant’s brief does not comport with the
appellate rules in almost any respect. As noted by Appellee, there are no specific
arguments made relating to any particular assignment of error. For this reason, alone,
we would be well within our discretion to dismiss this appeal. However, as the body of
Appellant’s argument section of his brief does mention issues that might pertain to [Cite as Portfolio Recovery Assoc. v. Gallabrese, 2026-Ohio-4039.]
assignments of error ten and eleven, those will be reviewed below. The remaining
assignments of error will be discussed summarily. The assignments of error are repeated
below with spelling and grammatical errors as presented in Appellant’s brief.
Summary Judgment Standard of Review
{¶7} An appellate court conducts a de novo review of a trial court's decision to
grant summary judgment, using the same standards as the trial court set forth in Civ.R.
56(C). Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105 (1996). Before summary
judgment can be granted, the trial court must determine that: (1) no genuine issue as to
any material fact remains to be litigated, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law, (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but
one conclusion, and viewing the evidence most favorably in favor of the party against
whom the motion for summary judgment is made, the conclusion is adverse to that party.
Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327 (1977). Whether a fact is “material”
depends on the substantive law of the claim being litigated. Hoyt, Inc. v. Gordon & Assoc.,
Inc., 104 Ohio App.3d 598, 603 (8th Dist. 1995).
{¶8} “[T]he moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the trial court
of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record which demonstrate
the absence of a genuine issue of fact on a material element of the nonmoving party's
claim.” (Emphasis deleted.) Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 296 (1996). If the moving
party carries its burden, the nonmoving party has a reciprocal burden of setting forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 293. In other words,
when presented with a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving
party must produce some evidence to suggest that a reasonable factfinder [Cite as Portfolio Recovery Assoc. v. Gallabrese, 2026-Ohio-4039.]
could rule in that party's favor. Brewer v. Cleveland Bd. of Edn., 122 Ohio App.3d 378,
386 (8th Dist. 1997).
{¶9} The evidentiary materials to support a motion for summary judgment are
listed in Civ.R. 56(C) and include the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,
written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact that
have been filed in the case. In resolving the motion, the court views the evidence in a light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. Temple, 50 Ohio St.2d at 327.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY AWARDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO
THE PLAINTIFF APPELLE, AS DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PLED AND
SHOWN “TRIABLE ISSUES OF FACT EXISTED.”
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY (INCORRECTLY) DETERMINING
STANDING.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 3
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ABUSING ITS DISCRETION (IN ONE TO
MANY INSTANCES (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO): 1. TREATING
THE BILL OF SALE AS CORRECT/VALID EVEN AFTER BEING SHOWN
ITS DEFICIENCIES; 2. SIMILAR TO 1, TREATING THE AFFIDAVIT AS
ADMISSIBLE EVEN AFTER BEING SHOWN ITS DEFICIENCIES (I.E.
DEFENDANT NEVER RECEIVED THE FORWARD FLOW PURCHASE
[Cite as Portfolio Recovery Assoc. v. Gallabrese, 2026-Ohio-4039.]
AGREEMENT TO INSPECT AS REQUIRED BY THE RULES OF
EVIDENCE, ETC.); 3. DENYING/ALLOWING PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE TO
NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION FROM DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY EVEN THOUGH JUST CAUSE AND
NON-SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS BY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE; 4. DENYING
THE DEFENDANT-APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, AS
SUFFICIENT CAUSE WAS SHOWN; ETC.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 4
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DECLARING A JUDGMENT CONTRARY TO
LAW.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 5
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DECLARING A JUDGMENT NOT
SUSTAINED BY THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 6
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN BY NOT DETERMINING THAT A
DISPUTE WAS KNOWN BY THE PREVAILING PARTY. DEFENDANTAPPELLEE “DOES NOT DENY USING THE ACCOUNT IN QUESTION OR
DISPUTE ANY BALANCE CLAIMED DUE,” SAID THE COURT, YET THE
DEFENDANT DID DISPUTE (SINCE 2024) AND PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
AND THEIR COUNSEL “WELTMAN” KNEW OF THE DISPUTE.
[Cite as Portfolio Recovery Assoc. v. Gallabrese, 2026-Ohio-4039.]
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 7
THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE COMMITTED MISCONDUCT OF THE
PREVAILING PARTY (IN THIS CASE PERJURY). PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
AND DEFENDANT-APPELLANT HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATING ABOUT
THE ALLEGED DEBT THAT THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT HAS
DISPUTED SINCE 2024.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 8
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY DETERMINING EXCESSIVE DAMAGES.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 9
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT DETERMINING AN ERROR IN THE
AMOUNT OF RECOVERY.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 12
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN A WAY NOT EXPLICITLY MENTIONED
SO FAR.
{¶10} Appellant has not raised arguments to specifically support each assignment
of error. App.R. 16(A)(7) requires that the brief of the appellant must contain an argument
pertaining to each assignment of error, reasons supporting the argument, and citations to
legal authorities in support of the argument. “These omissions clearly violate App.R.
16(A)(7) and are reason enough to overrule the assignment of error.” Givens v. Longwell,
2023-Ohio-4516, ¶ 24 (7th Dist.). “[I]t is not the job of this court to find errors and make
–8–
arguments for [the Appellant].” Midkiff v. Kuzniak, 2006-Ohio-6243, ¶ 11 (7th Dist.). “It
is not the function of this court to construct a foundation for a party's claims; failure to
comply with the rules governing practice in the appellate courts is a tactic which is
ordinarily fatal.” Kremer v. Cox, 114 Ohio App.3d 41, 60 (9th Dist. 1996). A pro se
appellant is held to the same standards as one represented by counsel. State ex rel.
Fuller v. Mengel, 2003-Ohio-6448, ¶ 10. “It is well established that pro se litigants are
presumed to have knowledge of the law and legal procedures and that they are held to
the same standard as litigants who are represented by counsel.” Id. Again, although we
could end our review here, and dismiss Appellant’s brief due to his violation of App.R.
16(A)(7), in the interest of fairness and justice we will discuss the few arguments we have
been able to glean from his brief.
{¶11} In assignment of error one, Appellant contends he presented triable issues
of fact that precluded summary judgment. On review, it is apparent Appellant failed to
offer any evidence in support of his response to Appellee’s motion for summary judgment
that could be relied on by the trial court. The documents he attached to his response were
not supported and authenticated by any affidavits. “The proper method for introducing
evidentiary materials not specifically authorized by Civ.R. 56(C) is to incorporate them by
reference into a properly framed affidavit.” Ryan v. Huntington Tr., 2015-Ohio-1880, ¶ 23
(7th Dist.). “Any evidentiary matter not specifically authorized by Civ.R. 56(C) must be
incorporated by reference in a properly framed affidavit.” In re Estate of Beatley v. Fisher,
2024-Ohio-5109, ¶ 46 (10th Dist.). Once Appellee presented evidence supporting its
claim to collect the debt owed by Appellant, it was Appellant’s duty to provide proper
evidence disputing those facts in a way that would establish that there was a genuine
issue for trial. Dresher at 293; Brewer at 386. Appellant completely
Case No. 26 JE 0005
[Cite as Portfolio Recovery Assoc. v. Gallabrese, 2026-Ohio-4039.]
failed to meet his burden of proof in summary judgment, and therefore, his first
assignment of error is overruled.
{¶12} The record reveals that at the February 2, 2026 hearing on the motion for
summary judgment, Appellant admitted that Appellee had presented a prima facie case
to collect the debt. (Tr. 5.) “To establish a prima facie case for money owed on an
account, a plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of an account, including that the
account is in the name of the party charged, and it must also establish (1) a beginning
balance of zero, or a sum that can qualify as an account stated, or some other provable
sum; (2) listed items, or an item, dated and identifiable by number or otherwise,
representing charges, or debits, and credits; and (3) summarization by means of a running
or developing balance, or an arrangement of beginning balance and items that permits
the calculation of the amount claimed to be due.” Dept. Stores Natl. Bank v. McGee,
2013-Ohio-894, ¶ 16 (7th Dist.).
{¶13} Appellant also confirmed to the judge at the February 2, 2026 hearing that
Appellee provided evidence by means of a bill of sale which showed that it purchased
Appellant’s debt from Barclays:
THE COURT: Well, they do present a bill of sale where they bought
this account from --[APPELLANT]: Correct. But --THE COURT: -- Barclays.
[APPELLANT]: -- the bill -- sorry.
[Cite as Portfolio Recovery Assoc. v. Gallabrese, 2026-Ohio-4039.]
THE COURT: And it does incorporate the affidavit that I just went
through with you.
[APPELLANT]: But the bill of sale is subject to the forward flow,
which they don’t produce.
(Tr., p. 9.)
{¶14} Appellant’s objection to Appellee’s evidence was not to the bill of sale, but
to Appellee’s failure to provide a “forward flow” document that, as will be discussed below,
is irrelevant to this case and to this appeal. Appellant apparently believed that a prima
facie case did not provide a sufficient basis for the trial court to grant summary judgment.
Appellant was mistaken in this belief. Once a creditor has established a prima facie case
of money owed on an account, if this evidence is unrebutted, the court may grant
summary judgment.
The evidence proffered by Discover was sufficient to establish a
prima facie case for money owed on an account. Thereupon, the burden
shifted to Paoletta to affirmatively demonstrate the existence of genuine
issues of material fact. . . . Paoletta failed to do so . . . he presented no
evidence whatsoever that the entirety of the claimed debt is not his, or that
interest was not properly and legally calculated Paoletta was required
to come forth with some evidence, either in his motion for summary
judgment or in his reply to Discover's motion, that judgment should not be
granted against him. This he wholly failed to do and accordingly, summary
judgment was appropriately granted to Discover and denied to Paoletta. [Cite as Portfolio Recovery Assoc. v. Gallabrese, 2026-Ohio-4039.]
Discover Bank v. Paoletta, 2010-Ohio-6031, ¶ 14-15 (8th Dist.).
{¶15} As pointed out by Appellee, most of Appellant’s assignments of error are
directed at the trial court’s March 4, 2026 judgment overruling Appellant’s motion for new
trial. This judgment has not been appealed. Further, as the trial court correctly stated,
there was no trial in this case. The case was resolved in summary judgment, and a motion
for new trial is inapplicable to summary judgment. “The flaw in appellant's argument is
engulfed in the belief that a summary judgment proceeding is a trial and that the logical
procedural flow would allow a motion for a new trial after a summary judgment had been
rendered.” A. & D., Inc. v. Bd. of Lake Cty. Commrs., 67 Ohio St.2d 384, 386 (1981).
Civ.R. 56(A) clearly separates summary judgment proceedings from trial proceedings. Id.
Summary judgment is a hearing upon a motion, rather than a hearing constituting a trial.
Id. at 387. “The legal conclusion in the instant cause is that the motion for a new trial
which questions the granting of a summary judgment is a nullity and not proper.” Id. Thus,
all the assignments of error that relate to the court’s ruling on Appellant’s motion for new
trial are also a nullity and must be overruled. This includes assignments of error two
through eleven.
{¶16} For the reasons stated, we overrule assignments of error one through nine.
Assignment of error twelve does not allege any error, and for that reason it is also
overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 10
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT DETERMINING ANY PART OF THE
VARIOUS CONTRACTS TO BE UNCONSCIONABLE.
[Cite as Portfolio Recovery Assoc. v. Gallabrese, 2026-Ohio-4039.]
{¶17} Most of the argument section of Appellant’s brief asserts that some contract
was unconscionable. It is not clear what contract Appellant believes is unconscionable.
The basis of Appellant’s appeal is that the assignment of the Barclays credit debt to
Appellee somehow invalidates his credit card debt, although there is no evidence or legal
authority offered to support this assertion. The assignment is an agreement between
Barclays and Appellee, not between Appellant and Appellee. Appellant argued to the trial
court that the assignment was not valid because Appellee failed to produce a document
he calls a “forward flow” agreement. Appellant attempted to compel discovery of this
document, but the trial court denied his motion. At the hearing on the motion for summary
judgment, Appellee’s counsel described the “forward flow” document as an agreement
between Barclays and Appellee describing the terms of the manner in which Appellee
buys debt from Barclays. (Tr. 11.) It does not describe the purchase of any specific debt,
but rather, contains ongoing terms as to how debt will be purchased between the two
businesses. Counsel argued at various points in this litigation that the agreement
contained proprietary information and was not relevant to collection of the specific debt
owed by Appellant. The trial judge noted that while Appellant was interested in finding out
how much Appellee paid for Appellant’s debt to Barclays, this detail of the forward flow
agreement was not relevant to this case. “I would agree with counsel that that is
proprietary and really none of your business.” (Tr. 13.) The court explained that if Appellee
paid ten cents for the debt and collected more, then it was a good deal for them, but if the
debt was uncollectible, it was a bad deal. (Tr. 13.) Either way, it had nothing to do with
whether Appellant borrowed money from Barclays, defaulted on the debt, and whether
Appellee could collect the debt based on a valid assignment. The assignment [Cite as Portfolio Recovery Assoc. v. Gallabrese, 2026-Ohio-4039.]
and the bill of sale of debt were contained in separate documents that were attached to
Appellee’s motion for summary judgment and were verified by two affidavits. These
documents proved that Appellee now owned Appellant’s debt. It is unclear what any of
this has to do with unconscionability.
{¶18} Whether a contract is unconscionable is an affirmative defense to a breach
of contract action. Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Pevarski, 2010-Ohio-785, ¶ 29 (4th
Dist.). It involves a factual inquiry into the circumstances of the contract. Eagle v. Fred
Martin Motor Co., 2004-Ohio-829, ¶ 13 (9th Dist.). Appellant offered no evidence
supporting this defense. Therefore, he has provided no basis for arguing on appeal that
some act of Appellee was unconscionable.
{¶19} Assignment of error ten is overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 11
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY NOT DETERMINING THE CONTRACT
AND AFFIDAVITS INVALID (BECAUSE OF NON-PRESENTING OF THE
FORWARD FLOW PURCHASE AGREEMENT, ETC.)
{¶20} Appellant argues that the assignment of his debt from Barclays to Appellee
was invalid because Appellee did not produce a forward flow agreement as part of
discovery. This issue was raised to the trial court, and Appellant’s argument was rejected
because the forward flow agreement contained proprietary information and was irrelevant
to this matter.
{¶21} Appellant cites one case to support his argument: Portfolio Recovery
Assocs., L.L.C. v. VanLeeuwen, 2016-Ohio-2962, ¶ 2 (2d Dist.). This case involved [Cite as Portfolio Recovery Assoc. v. Gallabrese, 2026-Ohio-4039.]
Portfolio’s attempt to collect credit card debt that it purchased from U.S. Bank. The trial
court granted Portfolio judgment on the pleadings, but the decision was reversed on
appeal because the pleadings did not establish as a matter of law that the debt was
assigned to Portfolio and what the amount of the debt was. This case is not relevant to
Appellant’s argument because the instant appeal involves summary judgment, not
judgment on the pleadings. Judgment on the pleadings is based solely on the allegations
contained in the pleadings and any documents attached to the pleadings. Offill v. State
Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2012-Ohio-6225, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.). In VanLeeuwen, Portfolio did not
attach the assignment documents to the pleadings. Therefore, judgment on the pleadings
was not appropriate. Id. at ¶ 9. In the instant matter, Appellee attached all of the
necessary documentation to its motion for summary judgment. We note that VanLeeuwen
does not discuss forward flow agreements or their relevance to the collection of debt via
an assignment of the debt.
{¶22} Appellant clearly disagrees with the trial court’s decision to overrule his
motion to compel discovery of the forward flow agreement. “The trial court has inherent
power to control discovery.” Whitacre v. Nationwide Ins., Co., 2012-Ohio-4557, ¶ 6 (7th
Dist.), citing Civ.R. 26(C). “A trial court's decision concerning discovery will not be
disturbed on review absent an abuse of discretion.” Id. Although Appellant does state
that, in general, the trial court abused its discretion, there is no attempt to establish why
the denial of the motion to compel was an abuse of discretion. As it is clear from the
record that the forward flow agreement is irrelevant, here, there was no abuse of
discretion and no basis for asserting error.
{¶23} Appellant’s eleventh assignment of error is overruled.
[Cite as Portfolio Recovery Assoc. v. Gallabrese, 2026-Ohio-4039.]
Conclusion
{¶24} Appellant appeals the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in
favor of Appellee regarding the collecting of his credit card debt. Appellee presented a
prima facie case establishing that it was entitled to collect the debt. Appellant agreed that
Appellee established its prima facie case, and he did not rebut the evidence. Appellant
relies instead, on his belief that Appellee’s failure to provide a forward flow agreement
invalidated its claim to collect. The trial court correctly held that the forward flow agreement
was not necessary or relevant to this case. Appellant has wholly failed to specifically raise
arguments in support of any of his assignments of error, which is a violation of App.R.
16(A)(7). The assignments of error are overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is
affirmed.
Robb, J., concurs
Hanni, J., dissents without dissenting opinion.
[Cite as Portfolio Recovery Assoc. v. Gallabrese, 2026-Ohio-4039.]
For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, Appellant’s assignments of
error are overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment
of the Steubenville Municipal Court of Jefferson County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs to be
taxed against the Appellant.
A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in
this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a
certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution.
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
This document constitutes a final judgment entry.