Discover Bank v. Applegate

2017 IL App (4th) 160571-U

DISCOVER BANK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. APRIL APPLEGATE, Defendant-Appellant.

NO. 4-16-0571

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

December 22, 2017

NOTICE

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from Circuit Court of Champaign County

No. 15SC1011

Honorable Holly F. Clemons, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court.

Presiding Justice Turner and Justice Steigmann concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the trial court properly (1) conducted the small-claims hearing, and (2) entered judgment in favor of plaintiff.

¶ 2 In September 2015, plaintiff, Discover Bank (Discover), filed a small-claims complaint against defendant, April Applegate, for an unpaid credit card account balance of $6607.96. Following a May 2016 bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff.

¶ 3 Defendant appeals, arguing (1) the complaint failed to plead sufficient facts to state a cause of action; (2) the trial court violated her rights to due process and equal protection by proceeding to a bench trial without adequately disposing of pretrial motions and orders; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment; and (4) the trial court abused its discretion and violated her rights to due process and equal protection by making certain procedural rulings. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 In September 2015, plaintiff filed a small-claims complaint against defendant for an unpaid credit card account balance of $6607.96. The complaint alleged defendant applied for a Discover Bank credit card account, made various purchases or cash advances on the account, and failed to pay for the purchases or cash advances. The complaint further alleged plaintiff exercised its right to accelerate the time for payment of the total amount due of $6607.96. Attached to the complaint was a copy of the Discover Card account summary. Finally, the complaint alleged, "Although demand has been made upon [d]efendant to liquidate the balance due and owing, the [d]efendant has failed or refused to do so."

¶ 6 After getting leave to conduct discovery from the trial court, defendant filed a request for the production of documents. Defendant sought various documents, including the following: (1) "a copy of the executed contract *** setting forth the terms [d]efendant is alleged to have agreed to in connection with the alleged account at the beginning"; (2) copies of any modifications to the contract's terms agreed to by defendant; (3) an accounting of charges and payments; (4) a copy of the demand letter referenced in the complaint; (5) documentation clarifying the relationship between plaintiff and Weltman, Weinberg & Reis Co. LPA (plaintiff's attorney of record), "including a bona fide affidavit of assignment or other authorization to enter into the alleged contract between [plaintiff] and [d]efendant"; and (6) any documentation that the debt had been transferred from Discover Bank to any third party, and details regarding the manner of the transfer.

¶ 7 During a March 2016 status hearing, plaintiff's counsel expressed his belief that documents responding to the discovery requests had been sent to defendant. Defendant stated she had received nothing from plaintiff. Due to issues with discovery, the attorney for plaintiff suggested continuing the matter to "ferret out" the discovery problems. Defendant stated, "I object, Your Honor. I'd like to request that you dismiss this case with prejudice. This is the second time that the same case has been filed. The first time it was dismissed for want of prosecution and, instead of refiling, the plaintiff sent me a letter saying that I had been found guilty in court and how much I owed them." The trial court granted defendant leave to file a motion to dismiss but indicated it would not proceed without a written motion on file. The court ordered plaintiff to resend the response to defendant's discovery request within 14 days of March 4, 2016.

¶ 8 At an April 1, 2016, status hearing, plaintiff's counsel stated he was told a package of discovery had been sent to defendant the day before. The trial court asked defendant if she wanted the case set for another status hearing so she had time to review the late discovery, and the following exchange occurred:

"THE DEFENDANT: Well, I'd like for it to be dismissed—

THE COURT: Well, at this point, if you want to file—

THE DEFENDANT: —for lack of prosecution.

THE COURT: Well, if you wish to file a motion, I'll be happy to take that up, but I can't do it on just an oral motion.

At this point—I'll set this for trial at this point so we don't have to linger on with this."

¶ 9 In May 2016, the trial court held a bench trial. Tamisha Sheridan, a team leader in the deceased account services department of Discover Financial Services, testified Discover Bank was a part of Discover Financial Services. Sheridan testified she reviewed defendant's account, which was opened in October 2004. According to Sheridan, defendant applied for a line of credit on the internet and Discover issued her a credit card. Sheridan testified the terms and conditions governing the use of the account were set forth in a card-member agreement sent with the credit card.

¶ 10 According to Sheridan, Discover advanced funds to pay for purchases or cash advances made by defendant. Discover received payments from defendant, applied the payments to her account, and sent her monthly statements. Sheridan testified the documents were kept and used in the ordinary course of business, and the internet application for the line of credit, the current card-member agreement, and the monthly statements were all introduced into evidence. According to Sheridan, the monthly statements showed defendant last made a payment on the credit card balance on May 28, 2013, leaving a balance of $5930.13. Sheridan testified the final monthly statement was issued on March 2, 2014, and showed a balance of $6607.96 due to no payments, late fees, and interest.

¶ 11 On cross-examination, Sheridan acknowledged the online application was not electronically signed and did not contain information regarding defendant's employment or income, although it did include her name, date of birth, social security number, and address. Sheridan also testified the current card-member agreement did not have defendant's signature on it. However, Sheridan went on to state, "There's never a signature line for a card[-]member agreement. Basically with the card[-]member agreement, it lays out the terms and conditions of your use of the card, so it's just showing you what your rights are."

¶ 12 Following Sheridan's testimony, defendant said she had "never seen this exhibit despite having requested it at least three different times," and she felt unable to respond in the available time. Plaintiff's counsel stated he had a delivery receipt showing the documents were delivered to defendant. The trial court offered defendant two options: "Either I can give you some time to review those documents and then we can try to get as much of this case in as we can this morning. Otherwise, if you wish to—with some time to review those documents, I'll set this matter over to another day." Defendant responded, "I don't believe those documents are going to be relevant to my defense, so I would just as soon proceed."

¶ 13 Defendant testified this claim had previously been filed as Champaign County case No. 14-SC-1022 and defendant did not receive a demand letter as required under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Debt Collection Act) (15 U.S.C.A. § 1692 (West 2016)). The trial court sustained objections to testimony regarding the procedural history of case No. 14-SC-1022 and the procedural history of the present case. Defendant then submitted her request for production as an exhibit and testified it "request[ed] validation of the debt under the Fair Debt Collection Act [sic]." Defendant submitted a second exhibit, which consisted of the documents she received in discovery, including (1) the online application for the credit card, (2) the card-member agreement, and (3) copies of account summaries.

¶ 14 In making its ruling, the trial court noted defendant did not claim someone else made the charges or any type of fraud. Additionally, the court found defendant made some regular payments during the time she had the credit card. The court further stated as follows:

"Her defense primarily is violations of the Fair Credit Act [sic]. I don't believe that those—that that rises to the level of a defense in this case. I believe certainly that she—that Discover had sent acard[-]member agreement to her, and every time she used that card, the credit card, that she had basically assented to that agreement. So I certainly believe at this juncture that the plaintiff has established their case by a preponderance of the evidence."

Finally, the court noted defendant's reliance on Razor Capital v. Antaal, 2012 IL App (2d) 110904, 972 N.E.2d 1238. The court found Razor Capital was not instructive to the present situation, as it involved a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the court entered a judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $6607.96 plus court costs.

¶ 15 This appeal followed.

¶ 16 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 17 On appeal, defendant argues (1) the complaint failed to plead sufficient facts to state a cause of action; (2) the trial court violated her rights to due process and equal protection by proceeding to a bench trial without adequately disposing of pretrial motions and orders; (3) the evidence was insufficient to support the judgment; and (4) the trial court abused its discretion and violated her rights to due process and equal protection by making certain procedural rulings. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's...