BRIEF OF APPELLANT CARL MEDLEY

IN THE COURT OF

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF

FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO

 

 

CARL MEDLEY
:     Case No. __25-AP-000632
PLAINTIFF – APPELLANT,          Trial No. __23-CV-006013
:    

                                           vs                  :     Judge: T. Jamison

               :
BMI FEDERAL CREDIT UNION          (REGULAR CALENDAR)
:
DEFENDANT – APPELLEE,
:                                                                       

 

 

ON APPEAL FROM THE FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS GENERAL DIVISION


 BRIEF OF APPELLANT CARL MEDLEY

 

 

(Name) CARL MEDLEY                                               (Name & ID #) Maria Guthrie (0068049)
(Title)   APPELLANT                                                    (Title)    Defense Council
(Address) 5260 ABEL MERRIL RD                             (Address) 65 East State Street, Suite 1800                               
Columbus Ohio 43221                                                   Columbus Ohio 43215
(Phone # / Fax #)614-636-1361                                     (Phone # / Fax #)614-462-5400
(email) CMEDLEY@HOTMAL.COM                        (email) MGUTHRIE@KEGLERBROWN.COM
Pro Se Litigant                                                               Council for Defendant                 

Table of Contents

  1. Table of Authorities ……………………………………………….,,,,.3
  2. Assignment of Error ………………………………………………….5
    III. Statement of the Issues Presented for Review……………………….9
    III. Introduction……………………………………………………….. 12

III. Statement of Jurisdiction …………………………………………..14

  1. Procedural Posture …………………………………………………16
  2. Statement of Facts ……………………………………………………19
  3. Law and Argument ………………………………………………..22

VII. Conclusion …………………………………………………………55

VIII. Appendice…………………………………………………………59

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1. Table of Authorities

Cases

Case Name Citation Page(s)
Carl Medley v. Auto Assets Franklin Cty. Ct. of Common Pleas, Case No. 24CV007698 (2024) 15, 18, 23, 28, 34, 39
GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc. 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) 24, 29
Kenty v. Transamerica Premium Ins. Co. 72 Ohio St.3d 415 (1995) 27, 48
Dresher v. Burt 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) 30
Cohen v. Lamko, Inc. 10 Ohio St.3d 167 (1984) 31, 43
Gibson v. Southgate 66 Ohio App.3d 76 (1990) 33, 54
Jones v. Davis 2024-Ohio-2972 34
Inskeep v. Burton 2008-Ohio-1982 35, 54
Ford Motor Company v. N.D. Ohio 5:10CV514 36, 41, 43, 52, 54
Hoover v. Sumlin 12 Ohio St.3d 1, 465 N.E.2d 1359 (1984) 36, 38
Peterson v. Teodosio 34 Ohio St.2d 161, 63 O.O.2d 262, 296 N.E.2d 405 (1973) 38
Fields Excavating, Inc. v. McWane, Inc. 12th Dist. No. CA2008-12-114, 2009-Ohio-5925 40, 43
Slusser v. Wyrick 28 Ohio App.3d 96 (1986) 41, 43, 49, 51, 52
Temple v. Wean United, Inc. 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) 52
Lucarell v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. 2018-Ohio-15 53
Whetstone v. Binner 2014-Ohio-3149 53
Dardinger v. Anthem Blue Cross 2002 53
TXO Prod. Corp. v. Alliance Res. Corp. 509 U.S. 443 53

 

 

Rules

Rule / Regulation Page(s)
Civ.R. 56(C) 5, 6, 10, 13, 22, 23, 28, 29, 32, 53, 61
Civ.R. 60(B) 15, 18, 23, 25, 26
Civ.R. 10(C) 35, 37, 38, 54
Civ.R. 12(C) 35
Civ.R. 15(A) 36
Civ.R. 1(B) 38
County Local Rule 56.03 6, 10, 32, 53

Statutes

Statute / Rule Page(s)
Ohio Revised Code §§2505.03 and 2505.04 14
Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure §§3 and 4 15

 

 

 

 

 

  1. Assignments of Error

  2. Assignment of Error No. 1: Disregard of Sworn Affidavit and Properly Submitted Evidence
    The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in its March 17, 2025 (page# 3369-3379) entry for BMI by disregarding Plaintiff’s sworn affidavit filed on January 21, 2025 (page# 2920-2991), and attached Exhibits 1–19, which were properly authenticated, notarized, and previously disclosed to the Court, in violation of Ohio Civ.R. 56(C) and Plaintiff’s due process rights under Ohio and federal law.
  3. Assignment of Error No. 2: Failure to Consider Critical Evidence Regarding Auto Assets Sale and Acceptance Letter
    The trial court erred by failing to consider the sale of the Audi R8 to Auto Assets and the Acceptance Letter confirming full satisfaction of the loan, thereby creating genuine factual disputes that preclude summary judgment.
  4. Assignment of Error No. 3: Improper Granting of BMI’s Untimely Summary Judgment Motion
    The trial court erred by considering and granting BMI’s motion for summary judgment (page# 2292 -2308) filed without leave of court after the established deadline, in violation of Ohio Civ.R. 56 and Franklin County Local Rule 56.03.
  5. Assignment of Error No. 4: Failure to Address Discovery Violations and Withholding of Material Evidence
    The trial court erred by granting summary judgment while unresolved discovery disputes remained and critical evidence, including the Acceptance Letter, bill of sale, and check #3001, was withheld by BMI. (Plaintiffs Notice Of Attachment filed 3-12-25, page #3322-3357)
  6. Assignment of Error No. 5: Misinterpretation of BMI’s Contract Provision as an Anti-Waiver Clause
    The trial court erred in characterizing BMI’s contract language as an enforceable anti-waiver clause, thereby precluding Plaintiff from arguing waiver through course of dealing, a recognized defense under Ohio law.
  7. Assignment of Error No. 6: Misapplication of Deposition Testimony Regarding Emotional Distress
    The trial court erred by relying solely on Plaintiff’s deposition to find no evidence of emotional distress, ignoring newly discovered evidence and exhibits unavailable at the time of deposition, thereby improperly precluding recovery.
  8. Assignment of Error No. 7: Denial of Due Process and Fundamental Fairness
    The trial court erred by granting BMI summary judgment despite procedural irregularities, failure to consider critical and newly discovered evidence, and mooting Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions, contempt, and increase ad damnum, in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional right to due process.
  9. Assignment of Error No. 8: Failure to Properly Consider Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and Incorporated Original Complaint
    The trial court erred by treating Plaintiff’s supplemental statement of relief as a substantive Amended Complaint and disregarding the Original Complaint, incorporated as Exhibit O (Plaintiff Amended Complaint filed 9/14/23 page# 75-80), resulting in failure to evaluate claims for exemption from deficiency obligations, reimbursement of loan payments, undue pressure and emotional distress, and punitive damages.
  10. Assignment of Error No. 9: Failure to Adjudicate Pending Motions Prior to Summary Judgment
    The trial court erred by issuing summary judgment without addressing two outstanding motions filed by Plaintiff: (1) the Motion to Amend the Motion to Dismiss (plaintiff, 1-15-25 page #2645-2776) and (2) the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (plaintiff, 8-24-23, pages 42-44), both containing material issues affecting Plaintiff’s rights and credit standing.

III. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Issue 1: Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment while disregarding Plaintiff’s sworn affidavit filed on January 21, 2025, and attached Exhibits 1–19 (Plaintiff, 1-21-25, page# 2920-2991), which were properly notarized, authenticated, and previously disclosed to the Court? (Assignment of Error No. 1)

Issue 2: Did the trial court err by failing to consider the sale of the Audi R8 to Auto Assets and the Acceptance Letter confirming full satisfaction of the loan, thereby creating genuine factual disputes that preclude summary judgment? (Assignment of Error No. 2) (

Issue 3: Did the trial court err in considering and granting BMI’s motion for summary judgment that was filed after the deadline without leave of court, in violation of Ohio Civ.R. 56 and Franklin County Local Rule 56.03? (Assignment of Error No. 3) (Plaintiffs Motion To Strike, filed 12-19-24, pages 2378-2385)

Issue 4: Did the trial court err by granting summary judgment while unresolved discovery disputes remained and critical evidence—including the Acceptance Letter, bill of sale, and check #3001—was withheld by BMI? (Assignment of Error No. 4) (Plaintiffs Notice Of Attachment filed 3-12-25, page #3322-3357)

Issue 5: Did the trial court err in characterizing BMI’s contract language as an enforceable anti-waiver clause, thereby precluding Plaintiff from arguing waiver through course of dealing under Ohio law? (Assignment of Error No. 5)  Plaintiffs Motion for Leave, page # 2309-2312 and Plaintiffs MSJ, page # and 2313-2377

Issue 6: Did the trial court err by relying solely on Plaintiff’s deposition to find no evidence of emotional distress, while ignoring newly discovered evidence and exhibits unavailable at the time of deposition? (Assignment of Error No. 6) (Plaintiffs Motion for Sanctions and Contempt, 2-12-25, pages 3114-3121 and Motion to Increase Ad Damnum, 2-11-25, pages 3093-3101)

Issue 7: Did the trial court err by granting BMI summary judgment despite procedural irregularities, failure to consider critical and newly discovered evidence, and mooting Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions, contempt, and increase ad damnum, in violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional right to due process? (Assignment of Error No. 7)

Issue 8: Did the trial court err by treating Plaintiff’s supplemental statement of relief as a substantive Amended Complaint and disregarding the Original Complaint, incorporated as Exhibit O, thereby failing to evaluate claims for exemption from deficiency obligations, reimbursement of loan payments, undue pressure and emotional distress, and punitive damages? (Assignment of Error No. 8)  (Plaintiffs Complaint. 8-23-23 with Exhibits 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, 3-3, 5-5, 6-6, 7-7, 8-8, 9-9, and Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, 8-24-23, pages 42-44),

Issue 9: Did the trial court err by issuing summary judgment without addressing Plaintiff’s pending Motion to Amend the Motion to Dismiss (plaintiff, 1-15-25 page #2645-2776) and Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (plaintiff, 8-24-23, pages 42-44),  both containing material issues affecting Plaintiff’s rights and credit standing? (Assignment of Error No. 9)

  1. INTRODUCTION
    This appeal arises from a contract and property dispute involving the repossession of Appellant’s vehicle by BMI Federal Credit Union (“BMI”) following a sale of the vehicle to a third party, Auto Assets, that BMI had authorized and partially executed. Appellant presented sworn affidavits and authenticated exhibits, (Plaintiffs Notice Of Attachment filed 3-12-25, page #3322-3357) demonstrating that BMI accepted a $127,000 payment through Auto Assets in satisfaction of the loan, later voided the transaction, repossessed the vehicle, and attempted to impose unlawful deficiency and personal loan terms. These events gave rise to claims for breach of contract, fraud, tortious interference, waiver through course of dealing, emotional distress, and punitive damages.

Despite a record containing notarized affidavits, documentary evidence, motions identifying newly discovered material evidence, and multiple unresolved procedural and discovery matters, the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granted BMI’s untimely motion for summary judgment. The trial court declared Plaintiff’s motions “moot,” mischaracterized the operative pleadings, failed to consider central evidence—including the Acceptance Letter and Auto Assets transaction—and issued judgment without addressing pending motions for injunctive relief and amendment.

Appellant seeks reversal because the trial court’s rulings were legally and procedurally defective. Under Ohio Civ.R. 56, summary judgment is proper only where no genuine issue of material fact exists, evidence is construed in favor of the non-moving party, and all pending matters affecting the legal and factual context have been adjudicated. Here, genuine disputes remain concerning the validity of BMI’s repossession, the legal effect of the Auto Assets payment, the enforceability of contractual provisions, the completeness of discovery, and the propriety of attorney-fee awards. Correction by this Court is necessary to restore procedural fairness, ensure accurate application of Ohio law, and permit adjudication of Appellant’s claims on the merits.

  1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
  2. Statement of Jurisdiction

This Court has appellate jurisdiction over the matters presented in this appeal pursuant to Ohio Revised Code §§2505.03 and 2505.04, which grant the Tenth Appellate District authority to review final orders of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.

Appellant, Carl Medley, seeks review of the trial court’s Decision and Entry granting BMI Federal Credit Union’s (“BMI”) Motion for Summary Judgment and denying appellant’s timely motion to consider newly discovered evidence pursuant to Ohio Civil Rule 60(B). The underlying dispute arises from contractual, property, and tortious interference issues related to the repossession of appellant’s vehicle and BMI’s refusal to transfer title despite an intervening sale to Auto Assets, a fact confirmed by documents obtained during discovery in a separate case: Carl Medley v. Auto Assets, Franklin Cty. Ct. of Common Pleas, Case No. 24CV007698 (2024), hereinafter referred to as Auto Assets.

Jurisdiction is further supported by the timely filing of this appeal following the trial court’s entry of judgment. Appellant properly preserved all objections to the trial court’s rulings, submitted motions consistent with Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure §§3 and 4, and raised issues of procedural irregularity, evidentiary withholding, and mischaracterization of material facts. These issues present justiciable questions for review, including whether the trial court improperly granted summary judgment without consideration of critical evidence and procedural safeguards, thereby violating appellant’s rights under Ohio law and the United States Constitution.

  1. Procedural Posture

The procedural history of this case is as follows:

  1. Initiation of Original Complaint: On August 23, 2023, appellant filed his original complaint against BMI in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, asserting claims of wrongful repossession, fraud, tortious interference, and failure to deliver proper title documentation. The original complaint explicitly raised the factual circumstances surrounding the 2018 Audi R8 convertible loan and repossession.
  2. Amended Complaint: On September 14, 2023, appellant filed an Amended Complaint, attaching the Original Complaint as Exhibit O. The Amended Complaint incorporated the original claims and included additional detail regarding damages, undue pressure, emotional distress, and requests for punitive damages. The trial court acknowledged that the Amended Complaint superseded the original pleading but improperly disregarded the incorporated Original Complaint in evaluating substantive claims.
  3. Counterclaim and Answer: BMI filed an Answer and Counterclaim on September 25, 2023, alleging breach of contract and asserting that appellant’s claims were frivolous.
  4. Summary Judgment Motions:

    • BMI’s Motion for Summary Judgment: BMI filed a motion for summary judgment on December 16, 2024, seeking dismissal of all claims asserted in the Amended Complaint and asserting entitlement to judgment on its counterclaims.
    • Appellant’s Motion for Summary Judgment: On December 17, 2024, appellant filed a motion for summary judgment requesting judgment in his favor for $29,030 for payments made on the Audi, $100,000 for emotional distress, and $3 million in punitive damages to prevent similar conduct by BMI in the future.
  5. Motions Addressing Procedural and Evidentiary Issues:

    • On February 11, 2025, appellant filed a Motion to Increase Ad Damnum to address withheld evidence.
    • On February 12, 2025, appellant filed a Motion for Sanctions and Contempt against BMI for failing to comply with discovery obligations.
    • On August 24, 2023, appellant filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to prevent BMI from reporting adverse information to credit bureaus while litigation remained pending.
    • On January 15, 2025, through discovery in the separate action Carl Medley v. Auto Assets (Case No. 24CV7698), Auto Assets provided key evidence, including the Acceptance Letter confirming the sale of the Audi and the cashed check, which had previously been withheld by BMI.
  6. Trial Court Ruling: On March 17, 2025, the trial court granted BMI’s Motion for Summary Judgment and denied appellant’s Rule 60(B) motion as moot. In doing so, the court failed to consider the Auto Assets transaction, the Acceptance Letter, the cashed check, and the fully executed bill of sale, despite these being central to appellant’s claims and filed with proper affidavits and exhibits.
  7. Appeal: Appellant timely filed this appeal (Case No. 25-AP-000632), requesting reversal of the summary judgment decision and remand for consideration of all material facts, newly discovered evidence, and procedural irregularities, including BMI’s withholding of critical documents and misrepresentation of the loan and repossession status.
  8. Statement of Facts
  9. Loan Agreement and Initial Ownership
    On February 28, 2022, appellant Carl Medley obtained a loan from BMI Federal Credit Union (“BMI”) to finance the purchase of a 2018 Audi R8 convertible. The principal balance was $171,375.50 at an interest rate of 2.54%. During the final nine months of ownership, appellant experienced financial difficulties and missed several payments, sometimes as many as fifty-five days late. BMI ultimately repossessed the vehicle.
  10. Agreement to Permit Short Sale
    Following repossession, BMI agreed to allow appellant to arrange a short sale of the Audi to the highest bidder, representing an opportunity to satisfy the outstanding loan balance while avoiding deficiency claims.
  11. Auto Assets Transaction
    On August 15, 2023, appellant secured a purchaser, Auto Assets, who agreed to purchase the Audi for $127,000. BMI accepted both the “Acceptance Letter” and the payment, thereby satisfying the loan obligation in full and leaving no remaining deficiency balance. Evidence of this transaction includes Auto Assets’ Acceptance Letter, the cashed check, and the fully executed bill of sale (Exhibits 19, 21, 22). (Plaintiffs Notice Of Attachment filed 3-12-25, page #3322-3357)
  12. BMI’s Interference with Completed Sale
    Despite having accepted the payment, on August 17, 2023, BMI unilaterally voided both the check and the purchase agreement and refused to transfer title to Auto Assets. BMI’s actions nullified a completed transaction, interfered with a lawful sale, and deprived appellant of the agreed resolution of the loan.
  13. Conflicting Loan Notices
    Around the same time, BMI issued contradictory deficiency and delinquency notices. On August 17, 2023, BMI representative Jason Rigano sent a notice asserting that appellant owed $4,814.32, overstating the actual delinquency. The next day, August 18, 2023, BMI corporate issued a corrected Loan Delinquent First Notice stating that the true past-due amount was $2,232.16.
  14. Vehicle Damages While in BMI’s Possession
    While in BMI’s custody, the Audi sustained damage to the windshield and front bumper. Auto Assets’ intake documentation confirms that the vehicle was in excellent condition at the time of sale. The estimated cost to repair the damage ranged between $6,000 and $8,000 (Exhibits 11, 12, 15). Plaintiffs MSJ, page # and 2313-2377
  15. Subsequent Auction and Claimed Deficiency
    On September 13, 2023, BMI sold the Audi at a public auction for $122,775. On September 18, 2023, BMI issued a Notice of Deficiency Balance, claiming a deficiency despite the prior fully executed sale to Auto Assets that had resolved the debt.
  16. Contradictory Representations and Coercive Loan Terms
    On August 14, 2023, as part of discussions over resolving any claimed deficiency, BMI offered appellant a personal loan at a 17.75% interest rate — a rate far higher than the original 2.54% deficiency rate set forth in Sections 6 and 9 of the Loan Agreement. In addition, BMI, through its representative Jason Rigano, fabricated an email purporting to show that Auto Assets had rescinded the sale — a representation that was knowingly false and intended to mislead appellant.
  17. LAW AND ARGUMENT
  18. Standard of Review

An appellate court reviews a trial court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Under Ohio Civil Rule 56(C), summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. All reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the non-moving party.

In this case, genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the completed sale to Auto Assets and BMI’s interference, the withholding of the “Acceptance Letter” and supporting documents, fraudulent misrepresentation of deficiency balances and loan obligations, and procedural irregularities including discovery violations and the denial of Plaintiff’s Rule 60(B) motion.

The trial court improperly ignored these facts, misapplied Rule 56, and violated the appellant’s due process rights.

  1. Rule 60(B) and Newly Discovered Evidence

Ohio Civil Rule 60(B) permits a party to seek relief from a judgment for, among other grounds, mistake, inadvertence, surprise, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial, and fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by an adverse party.

In the present case, Plaintiff obtained the Auto Assets “Acceptance Letter,” cashed check, and fully executed bill of sale through discovery in the separate action, Carl Medley v. Auto Assets, Case No. 24CV007698, on January 15, 2025. This evidence was previously unavailable and could not have been obtained or produced in time to respond to the parties’ motions for summary judgment. These documents materially prove that the Audi was sold and Plaintiff’s debt was fully satisfied prior to BMI’s repossession. Accordingly, this evidence is central to Plaintiff’s claims of wrongful repossession, fraud, and tortious interference with contract.

The denial of consideration of this newly discovered evidence prejudiced Plaintiff because the trial court granted summary judgment without access to documents that directly demonstrate that BMI’s repossession and subsequent actions were unauthorized, fraudulent, and constituted tortious interference. Under established Ohio law, the failure to consider material newly discovered evidence that could not have been obtained before the prior judgment constitutes reversible error. Specifically, in GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976), the Ohio Supreme Court held that relief is warranted when a party is prevented from presenting critical evidence through no fault of its own, and the exclusion of such evidence results in an unfair adjudication. The “Acceptance Letter,” cashed check, and fully executed bill of sale directly prove that Plaintiff satisfied the debt and that BMI’s repossession was wrongful.

These documents also corroborate Plaintiff’s assertions regarding fraud, misrepresentation, and tortious interference, as BMI unilaterally voided the Auto Assets transaction despite having no contractual authority to do so.

Further, Plaintiff filed a grievance regarding Attorney Maria C. Mariano Guthrie’s withholding of documents critical to the Auto Assets transaction. Attorney Guthrie’s conduct constitutes misconduct under Rule 60(B)(3), which permits relief where judgment is obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by an adverse party.

The withheld documents were essential to demonstrating that the transaction with Auto Assets fully satisfied Plaintiff’s obligations and that BMI acted improperly by repossessing and subsequently selling the vehicle. Courts recognize that the deliberate suppression, spoliation, or withholding of material evidence can justify relief under Rule 60(B)(3), particularly where the misconduct prevents a party from fairly presenting its claims or defenses.

By withholding these documents, the Defendant effectively deprived the Court of critical evidence, resulting in judgment under conditions of unfair surprise and preventing Plaintiff from fully establishing his claims at summary judgment.

Taken together, the newly discovered evidence from Auto Assets, along with the misconduct by Attorney Guthrie in withholding these materials, establishes a compelling basis for relief under Rule 60(B).

Consideration of this evidence is necessary to correct the trial court’s error, ensure that Plaintiff’s claims of wrongful repossession, fraud, and tortious interference are fairly adjudicated, and prevent enforcement of a judgment rendered without the benefit of material, determinative evidence.

  1. Material Fact Disputes Preclude Summary Judgment

Ohio law recognizes the enforceability of completed sales and the necessity of proper title transfer. Once Auto Assets purchased the vehicle with BMI’s acceptance and full payment, any unilateral interference by BMI constitutes tortious interference with contract. Kenty v. Transamerica Premium Ins. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 415 (1995). Here, BMI voided the Auto Assets transaction despite having no contractual authority to do so, while simultaneously misrepresenting that Auto Assets had rescinded the sale. Exhibits 19, 21, 22, and 24 (Plaintiffs Notice Of Attachment filed 3-12-25, page #3322-3357) document the executed Acceptance Letter, the cashed check, the fully executed bill of sale, and supporting valuation notes, all of which establish that the sale was completed and that Plaintiff’s debt was satisfied prior to BMI’s repossession. These exhibits create genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether BMI acted unlawfully and in bad faith, and the trial court’s disregard of this evidence in granting summary judgment was legal error.

BMI’s own conduct demonstrates deliberate misrepresentation and manipulation of the payoff process. On August 17 and 18, 2023, BMI issued contradictory payoff notices (Exhibits 16 and 17, filed 3/17/25 page # 3392-3411), (Plaintiffs creating confusion regarding the amount owed and the status of the loan. This conduct supports both the tortious interference and fraud claims and further underscores the existence of material factual disputes.

The evidentiary record the trial court ignored is substantial. Plaintiff submitted a sworn affidavit on January 21, 2025, in compliance with Civ.R. 56, corroborating that the Auto Assets transaction was valid and fully executed. The affidavits of Auto Assets’ owner, Chip Vance, directly contradict BMI’s assertions regarding the alleged rescission of the sale. On March 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notarized Notice of Filing Exhibits 21, 22, and 24 (Plaintiffs Notice Of Attachment filed 3-12-25, page #3322-3357) attaching certified Auto Assets documents obtained in Case No. 24CV007698, including:

  1. AUTO000005–AUTO000008 — cancelled checks evidencing BMI’s acceptance and later refund of Auto Assets’ $127,000 payment;
  2. AUTO000009 — a fully executed August 15, 2023 Bill of Sale/Purchase Agreement resolving Plaintiff’s debt; and
  3. AUTO000010–AUTO000013 — internal valuation notes corroborating the negotiated payoff amount.

This filing was timely, material, and authenticated under oath, yet the trial court did not address it in its March 17, 2025 judgment entry. Ignoring properly filed, sworn, dispositive evidence while crediting BMI’s untested assertions constitutes an abuse of discretion and a violation of Civ.R. 56(C). GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc., 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (requiring courts to consider all timely, proper Civ.R. 56(C) materials before ruling on summary judgment).

By selectively excluding Plaintiff’s evidence while accepting affidavits submitted by BMI, the trial court improperly shifted the evidentiary burden and deprived Plaintiff of a fair opportunity to establish critical facts. Ohio law requires that affidavits be evaluated in context, with all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of the non-moving party. Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996).

BMI did not object to the authenticity of these documents during Plaintiff’s deposition on October 10, 2024, thereby waiving any subsequent objections. The trial court’s failure to apply this procedural rule, combined with its disregard of authenticated, material, conflicting evidence, constitutes reversible error.
D. BMI’s Fraudulent Misrepresentations, Wrongful Repossession, and Coercive Lending Preclude Summary Judgment

On August 17, 2023, Plaintiff requested to inspect the vehicle prior to payment to verify its condition, but BMI failed to respond. That same day, BMI repossessed the vehicle, changed the title to remove Plaintiff as the owner, and coerced him into accepting a new personal loan at a usurious 17.75% interest rate, despite the original deficiency clause of 2.54%.

BMI’s representative, Jason Rigano, further compounded the fraud by fabricating an email purporting to show that Auto Assets rescinded the sale. This email was knowingly false, intended to mislead Plaintiff, and directly caused financial harm, including $6,000–$8,000 in damage to the vehicle while in BMI’s possession, as well as emotional distress.

Under Cohen v. Lamko, Inc., 10 Ohio St.3d 167 (1984), the elements of fraud require: (1) a false representation of a material fact, (2) knowledge of or intent to mislead, (3) justifiable reliance by the plaintiff, and (4) resulting harm. Each of these elements is satisfied by BMI’s conduct: the misrepresentation of the rescission, the intentional and deceptive alteration of records, and the unilateral repossession demonstrate knowledge and intent; Plaintiff relied on these communications in attempting to comply with the loan; and Plaintiff suffered financial, property, and emotional harm as a direct consequence.

The combination of conflicting communications, unauthorized repossession, falsified documentation, and deliberate misrepresentation establishes a clear pattern of bad faith and intentional deception. Plaintiff acted in reliance on BMI’s representations to fulfill his contractual obligations, yet suffered damages due to BMI’s fraudulent conduct.

These facts demonstrate that summary judgment in favor of BMI was improper because genuine disputes exist regarding the intent, conduct, and impact of BMI’s actions. Any judgment granted without consideration of these disputes constitutes reversible error and undermines Plaintiff’s ability to fully present his claims of tortious interference, fraud, and wrongful repossession.

  1. Procedural Irregularities and Due Process Violations

BMI filed its Motion for Summary Judgment late without obtaining leave of court, contrary to Franklin County Local Rule 56.03 and Ohio Civ. R. 56. The trial court’s acceptance of this motion prejudiced Plaintiff by granting relief before allowing full discovery and review of newly obtained evidence. BMI’s motion was filed after the deadline and without leave of court. Plaintiff’s motion was timely filed, yet the trial court improperly granted BMI’s late-filed motion while denying Plaintiff’s, constituting clear legal error.

Plaintiff submitted interrogatories regarding BMI’s handling of the Auto Assets transaction. BMI’s obstruction and withholding of key documents denied procedural fairness. Courts consistently hold that summary judgment is improper when discovery is incomplete or material evidence is withheld, as in Gibson v. Southgate, 66 Ohio App.3d 76 (1990). BMI’s motion relied on an incomplete record due to its own failure to produce court-ordered discovery. Despite prior court directives, BMI withheld critical evidence, including the Acceptance Letter and Check #3001, the Bill of Sale and Auto Assets’ acknowledgment of the sale, contradictory statements in BMI’s records acknowledging receipt of the check while denying the transaction, and unresolved discovery disputes as reflected in Exhibits M-2, 19, 21, and 22. (Plaintiffs Notice Of Attachment filed 3-12-25, page #3322-3357)

Newly discovered evidence from Auto Assets litigation, Case No. 24CV007698, contradicts BMI’s claims. Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions, contempt, and increase ad damnum were improperly mooted, ignoring their connection to BMI misconduct. Ohio law is clear that summary judgment is inappropriate when factual disputes and unresolved discovery issues exist, see Jones v. Davis, 2024-Ohio-2972. Granting summary judgment under these circumstances violates due process.

  1. THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AND THE INCORPORATION OF THE ORINIGAL COMPLAINT

 

  1. Operative Pleading

Plaintiff Carl Medley filed his initial Complaint on August 23, 2023, which was superseded by his Amended Complaint on September 14, 2024. As noted in the trial court’s Entry dated June 25, 2024, the Amended Complaint supersedes and replaces the original Complaint as the operative pleading (Entry p. 3).

  1. Incorporation of Original Complaint

Although the Amended Complaint governs procedurally, the original Complaint was attached as Exhibit O, explicitly incorporating it into the operative pleading. Under Ohio Civ.R. 10(C), “a copy of any written instrument attached to a pleading is a part thereof for all purposes.” By attaching the original Complaint, Plaintiff ensured that the factual foundation and legal theories asserted therein remain relevant and inseparable from the claims advanced in the Amended Complaint. This incorporation is not merely supplementary; it provides essential context for the claims, legal theories, and supporting evidence.

  1. Ohio Case Law Supporting Incorporation

Courts have repeatedly recognized that attached documents are considered part of the operative pleadings:

Inskeep v. Burton, 2008-Ohio-1982: documents attached to pleadings remain part of the record and are subject to judicial consideration under Civ.R. 12(C).

Ford Motor Company v. N.D. Ohio, 5:10CV514: exhibits attached to an amended complaint, when referenced and central to the claims, must be treated as part of the operative pleading.

These precedents confirm that the original Complaint, explicitly incorporated via Exhibit O, remains fully relevant despite the procedural supersession by the Amended Complaint.

  1. Liberal Policy for Amending Pleadings

Ohio Civ.R. 15(A) provides that leave to amend a pleading “shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Hoover v. Sumlin, 12 Ohio St. 3d 1, 465 N.E.2d 1359 (1984) reinforces that a trial court’s denial of leave to amend is an abuse of discretion absent a showing of bad faith, undue delay, or prejudice to the opposing party. The Court emphasized that pleadings are designed to provide notice of claims and defenses, not to create technical barriers, and that amendments should be allowed to ensure disputes are resolved on the merits.

This liberal amendment policy applies equally to claims incorporated from prior pleadings. Just as amendments may preserve affirmative defenses or other claims, the incorporation of the original Complaint preserves the factual and legal context necessary for a full adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims.

  1. Rebuttal to BMI’s Argument

BMI contends that Plaintiff introduced “new claims” outside the Amended Complaint, specifically citing allegations of fraudulent conduct, tortious interference, breach of contract, and related violations.

This argument is incorrect. These claims are consistent with those asserted in both the original and Amended Complaint. The original Complaint, incorporated via Exhibit O, remains part of the operative pleading under Civ.R. 10(C). Accordingly, the claims raised in the Motion are not “new” but properly aligned with those initially asserted.

  1. Resolution on the Merits

Ignoring the incorporated original Complaint would contravene Civ.R. 10(C) and the liberal amendment policies recognized in Hoover v. Sumlin. The Civil Rules favor resolving disputes on the merits rather than on procedural technicalities (Peterson v. Teodosio, 34 Ohio St. 2d 161, 63 O.O.2d 262, 296 N.E.2d 405 (1973); Civ.R. 1(B)).

Considering the Amended Complaint together with the incorporated original Complaint ensures that all claims, factual allegations, and legal theories are evaluated in full context, providing the Court with a complete picture of Plaintiff’s case.
Importantly, the Amended Complaint explicitly incorporated the original complaint as Exhibit O. The Amended Complaint did not assert new substantive claims; rather, it merely supplemented the relief sought in the ad damnum clause of the original complaint.

All substantive claims — including fraud, tortious interference, and breach of contract — were already part of the original complaint and thus incorporated into the operative pleadings.

Accordingly, even if the Court finds that the Amended Complaint itself does not separately restate claims for fraud, tortious interference, or breach of contract, those claims were not preserved through the incorporation of the original Complaint as Exhibit O, making the Amended Complaint together with Exhibit O not the operative pleading. As such, res judicata would not bar Plaintiff from pursuing these claims by adding BMI as a defendant in the Carl Medley v. Auto Assets, Case No. 24CV007698 action. The trial court itself recognized that:

“Upon reviewing Mr. Medley’s Amended Complaint and Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court finds that Mr. Medley has failed to plead a claim for fraud, breach of contract, tortious interference, emotional distress, that BMI waived its contractual rights to enforce the Loan, that BMI caused damage to the Audi, or that punitive damages are appropriate.”

Although these claims were all included in the MSJ and Pre-Trial Statement, and even if the lower court’s decision is upheld, they either were not fully adjudicated on the merits or did not remain part of the operative pleading through Exhibit O, thereby preserving Plaintiff’s right to pursue them.

G. Waiver, Mischaracterization of Contractual Provisions, and Anti-Waiver Analysis
        The trial court mischaracterized BMI’s contractual language, citing a provision from the Loan Agreement and Security Agreement as an “anti-waiver” clause, which states:

 

“We can delay enforcing any of Our rights under this Agreement any number of times without losing the ability to exercise Our rights later” (Loan Agreement, §9; Security Agreement, §10).

Nowhere in the Loan Agreement or Security Agreement is this language labeled as an anti-waiver clause. The terms “anti-waiver,” “waiver,” or “anti waiver” do not appear in any of the cited provisions.

True anti-waiver clauses explicitly state that delayed enforcement of rights does not constitute a waiver of future rights. For example, in Fields Excavating, Inc. v. McWane, Inc., 12th Dist. No. CA2008-12-114, 2009-Ohio-5925, ¶35, the court explained that no delay or failure by a seller to exercise any right under a contract shall be construed as a waiver, and that waiver by the seller of any breach shall be limited to the specific breach so waived.

The BMI provision lacks these elements, only allowing delayed enforcement without addressing waiver by conduct or repeated acceptance of late payments.

Throughout 2023, BMI accepted nine late payments, some exceeding fifty-five days past due, without objection or notice, demonstrating a waiver under Ohio law. Repeated acceptance of late payments without objection estops a creditor from repossessing collateral or enforcing strict payment deadlines, as held in Slusser v. Wyrick, 28 Ohio App.3d 96 (1986). In Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Ryan, 189 Ohio App. 3d 560, 603-604 (10th Dist. 2010), the court confirmed that the absence of an anti-waiver clause combined with prior acceptance of late payments bars the creditor from enforcing deadlines without clear notice. Here, BMI never issued notice that future late payments would not be tolerated. Any repossession based on a single late payment after multiple accepted late payments constitutes a waiver of strict enforcement rights.

The trial court also erred by deferring to BMI’s self-proclaimed anti-waiver argument. BMI’s claim that the clause preserves its right to enforce deadlines despite late payments is unsupported and directly contradicted by the cited case law. Acceptance of late payments without objection, in the absence of a valid anti-waiver clause, estops BMI from claiming default. In fact, BMI’s reliance on this provision in its Motion for Summary Judgment inadvertently supports Plaintiff’s position by acknowledging that no true anti-waiver protection exists.

Legally, because BMI repeatedly accepted late payments, it cannot now claim default. Plaintiff reasonably relied on BMI’s prior conduct, expecting continued acceptance of late payments. Any repossession or enforcement of an alleged deficiency loan after these repeated accommodations constitutes unlawful and inconsistent conduct, reinforcing Plaintiff’s waiver and estoppel arguments.

The provision cited by BMI is not an anti-waiver clause, and BMI’s past actions, including repeated acceptance of late payments without objection, waived its right to strict enforcement of the loan terms. The case law, including Slusser, Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Ryan, and Fields Excavating, supports Plaintiff’s position. The court erred by mischaracterizing BMI’s contractual language and failing to recognize the effect of BMI’s conduct on Plaintiff’s rights.
H. Summary Judgment Was Improper Because Substantial Evidence Supports Claims of Fraud, Interference, and Breach

Fraud under Ohio law requires proof that the defendant knowingly made a false representation of a material fact, with intent to mislead, causing justifiable reliance and resulting harm, as set forth in Cohen v. Lamko, Inc., 10 Ohio St.3d 167 (1984). BMI’s conduct, particularly through its representative Jason Rigano, satisfies all elements of fraud.

  1. False Representations

On August 15, 2023, Plaintiff sold the vehicle to Auto Assets for $127,000, with BMI’s prior acknowledgment to accept this as full resolution of the loan. On August 17, 2023, BMI, through Rigano, falsely represented via email that Auto Assets had rescinded the sale, fabricating the email to void the sale and coerce Plaintiff into accepting unfavorable personal loan terms.

Further, on August 16, 2023, Rigano issued a notice claiming Plaintiff owed $4,464.32, while on August 18, 2023, BMI issued a “First Notice” stating the past-due amount was $2,232.16. This discrepancy evidences deliberate misrepresentation to create confusion and exert undue pressure on Plaintiff.

The documented repossession timeline demonstrates coordinated deception.

  1. At 10:30 a.m., Rigano claimed BMI unilaterally voided the deal.
  2. By 11:00 a.m., Plaintiff inquired about the rescission agreement from Auto Assets,

 

  1. and at 11:11 a.m., Rigano asserted that Auto Assets agreed to rescind or void the deal.
  2. Plaintiff requested inspection of the vehicle at 12:03 p.m. with no response, and contacted Auto Assets at 12:10 p.m., being informed that BMI voided the deal and refused title transfer.
  3. At 12:25 p.m., Rigano faxed Auto Assets authorizing repossession.
  4. Plaintiff’s second inspection request at 12:29 p.m. went unanswered,
    and at 12:42 p.m., Rigano emailed Plaintiff stating, “We have chosen to repo the vehicle.”
  5. By 5:00 p.m., the vehicle title changed per Carfax, with BMI becoming the titled owner and removing Plaintiff from title.

This timeline illustrates deliberate misrepresentation and coordinated efforts to prevent Plaintiff from inspecting or protecting the vehicle, supporting the fraud claim.

  1. Intent to Mislead

Rigano’s communications were clearly designed to mislead Plaintiff into believing the short sale had been rescinded, compelling acceptance of BMI’s personal loan at 17.75% interest—far exceeding the contractually agreed 2.54% deficiency rate.

The timing of the repossession, occurring before the loan payment due date, demonstrates pretextual action intended to induce reliance on false representations. BMI’s conduct reflects an intent to coerce Plaintiff into unfavorable loan terms while obscuring the legality of the short sale and repossession.

  1. Resulting Harm
  2. Financial Harm
    The vehicle incurred damage estimated between $6,000 and $8,000 while in BMI’s possession. Plaintiff’s loan obligations were also artificially inflated based on fabricated deficiency calculations, as documented in Exhibits 16 and 17.
  3. Emotional Distress and Reputational Harm
    Plaintiff experienced undue pressure, coercion, and uncertainty as a result of BMI’s deceptive practices. The misrepresentations obstructed Plaintiff’s ability to lawfully resolve the loan and protect the vehicle, causing both emotional distress and reputational damage.
  4. Exhibits Supporting Fraud

The evidence supporting Plaintiff’s fraud claim includes:

  • EXHIBIT 6: Email from Rigano fabricating rescission by Auto Assets. (Plaintiff MSJ Exhibits, filed 12/17/24, page# 2313-23877)
  • EXHIBIT 16: August 17, 2023 notice claiming $4,464.32 owed. filed 3/17/25 page # 3392-3411
  • EXHIBIT 17: August 18, 2023 notice claiming $2,232.16 owed. filed 3/17/25 page # 3392-3411
  • EXHIBIT 1: Record of nine late payments accepted by BMI, demonstrating inconsistent enforcement of contractual rights. (Plaintiff MSJ Exhibits, filed 12/17/24, page# 2313-23877)
  1. Tortious Interference
  2. Tortious Interference with Auto Assets Sale

Under Ohio law, tortious interference occurs when a party intentionally interferes with a valid contract, causing economic harm. On August 15, 2023, Plaintiff executed a valid purchase agreement with Auto Assets for the vehicle at $127,000, with BMI’s prior acknowledgment to accept this sale as full satisfaction of the loan. (See Acceptance Letter, Plaintiffs Notice Of Attachment filed 3-12-25, page #3322-3357)

BMI, through Rigano, improperly voided the short sale despite admitting it was not a party to the transaction. The fabricated email asserting rescission and the subsequent unilateral repossession of the vehicle constitute deliberate interference.

Resulting Damages
Plaintiff suffered financial harm in the form of $6,000–$8,000 in vehicle damage while in BMI’s possession. Reputational harm also resulted, as Plaintiff’s credibility was questioned due to BMI’s misrepresentations. Additionally, Plaintiff lost the contractual benefit of the agreed-upon $127,000 short sale proceeds.

Supporting Case Law
Ohio courts recognize that interference with a valid contractual relationship causing economic harm is actionable. See Kenty v. Transamerica Premium Ins. Co., 72 Ohio St.3d 415 (1995). Exhibits 19, 21, and 22, Plaintiffs Notice Of Attachment filed 3-12-25, page #3322-3357, document communications and confirmations of the sale, creating genuine disputes of material fact precluding summary judgment.

  1. Breach of Contract by BMI
  2. Failure to Honor Deficiency Clause
    The original loan agreement required a 2.54% deficiency rate. BMI attempted to impose a 17.75% interest rate through a personal loan after voiding the short sale, constituting a breach of the loan agreement and material harm to Plaintiff.
  3. Improper Repossession of Vehicle
    BMI repossessed the vehicle before the loan payment due date, despite previously accepting late payments in 2023 without objection (EXHIBIT 1). Ohio law and precedent, including Slusser v. Wyrick, 28 Ohio App.3d 96 (1986), establish that acceptance of late payments without objection waives strict enforcement rights. BMI’s actions directly contradict this prior course of dealing, constituting a breach of contract.
  4. Connection to Fraud (See Plaintiffs Pretrial Statement and Exhibits filed 3-17-25, page #, 3380-3390, 3391-3391, 3392-3411, 3412-3460, 3461-3502)
    The Rigano email, which voided the sale and misrepresented Auto Assets’ position, directly enabled the breach. Without this misrepresentation, Plaintiff could have negotiated or cured the payment under the original deficiency terms (EXHIBITS 16–17).
  5. Supporting Evidence (See Plaintiffs Pretrial Statement and Exhibits filed 3-17-25, page #, 3380-3390, 3391-3391, 3392-3411, 3412-3460, 3461-3502)
  • EXHIBIT 1: Record of nine late payments accepted without objection, establishing waiver of strict enforcement.
  • EXHIBIT 2: Loan agreement and deficiency clause specifying 2.54% rate.
  • EXHIBIT 6: Rigano email fabricating rescission by Auto Assets.
  • EXHIBITS 16–17: Conflicting deficiency notices demonstrating deceptive practices.
  • EXHIBITS 19, 21, 22: Affidavits and documents verifying the short sale and payment.
  1. Legal Conclusion for Tortious Interference and Breach
    BMI’s actions satisfy the elements of tortious interference: a valid contract existed, BMI intentionally interfered, and Plaintiff suffered resulting harm. BMI further breached the loan agreement by voiding a legitimate short sale, imposing unauthorized loan terms, and improperly repossessing the vehicle.

The fabricated Rigano email demonstrates fraudulent intent, justifying claims for both compensatory and punitive damages.

  1. Breach of Contract

BMI breached the original loan agreement, including the 2.54% deficiency clause, in three ways:

  1. Failure to Honor Deficiency Clause – BMI attempted to impose a 17.75% interest rate, contrary to the contract.
  2. Improper Repossession – BMI repossessed the vehicle without legal justification, despite prior acceptance of late payments.
  3. Contractual Waiver by Conduct – Acceptance of late payments without objection constitutes waiver of strict enforcement (Slusser v. Wyrick, 28 Ohio App.3d 96 (1986)).

The combination of fraudulent misrepresentation, wrongful repossession, and breach of contract supports Plaintiff’s claims for damages.

  1. Violations of UDAAP and Consumer Protections

BMI engaged in conduct that constitutes unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices (UDAAP). Specifically, BMI misrepresented the Auto Assets rescission, issued conflicting payoff demands (Exhibits 16 and 17), and coerced Plaintiff into accepting an unlawful personal loan at 17.75% interest. Even if the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA) does not apply directly to financial institutions, these actions violate general consumer protection principles, which support Plaintiff’s claims under UDAAP.

  1. Application of Relevant Case Law

Ohio courts have consistently emphasized that fraud requires a material misrepresentation intended to mislead, as illustrated in Adams v. Margarum.

Here, BMI’s fabrication of an email purportedly evidencing rescission by Auto Assets constitutes such a misrepresentation. In the context of breach of contract, Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Ryan reinforces that the absence of an anti-waiver clause strengthens the borrower’s position, while Slusser v. Wyrick establishes that repeated acceptance of late payments estops a creditor from enforcing strict payment deadlines.

Finally, under the summary judgment framework articulated in Temple v. Wean United, Inc.(1977), 50 Ohio St. 2d 317,  Plaintiff has satisfied the burden by presenting evidence of fraud, tortious interference, and breach.

  1. Punitive Damages

Ohio law permits recovery of punitive damages when a breach of contract involves an independent tort and causes harm separate from contractual violations (Lucarell v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 2018-Ohio-15). BMI’s conduct—fabricating a rescission, interfering with the Auto Assets sale, and coercing onerous loan terms—constitutes independent torts resulting in financial and emotional harm (Whetstone v. Binner, 2014-Ohio-3149; Dardinger v. Anthem Blue Cross, 2002). Plaintiff’s request for $3 million, approximately 0.43% of BMI’s assets, is proportionate, consistent with deterrent purposes, and justified under TXO Prod. Corp. v. Alliance Res. Corp., 509 U.S. 443.

  1. Procedural Irregularities and Due Process Violations

BMI’s motion for summary judgment was filed after the deadline without leave of court, violating Franklin County Local Rule 56.03 and Ohio Civ. R. 56. The court’s acceptance of this late motion prejudiced Plaintiff, who had timely filed a motion for summary judgment. Courts consistently recognize that motions filed outside the deadline without leave are procedurally defective.

In addition, Plaintiff submitted interrogatories regarding the Auto Assets transaction, yet BMI withheld critical documents, obstructing procedural fairness. Denial of discovery renders summary judgment improper (Gibson v. Southgate, 66 Ohio App.3d 76 (1990)). Specifically, BMI failed to produce the Acceptance Letter, original check #3001, Bill of Sale, and evidence confirming full payment. Motions for sanctions, contempt, and increase of the ad damnum were wrongfully deemed moot, compounding procedural errors.

Finally, the court ignored Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, which incorporates the original complaint via Exhibit O. Under Ohio Civ. R. 10(C), attached instruments are part of the pleading, and precedent confirms that original complaints remain relevant when incorporated (Inskeep v. Burton, 2008-Ohio-1982; Ford Motor Co. v. N.D. Ohio, 5:10CV514). Plaintiff’s claims—including fraud, interference, and breach—align with the operative Amended Complaint.

VII. CONCLUSION AND RELIEF

The trial court erred in granting summary judgment for BMI. The record demonstrates multiple, independent errors that collectively prejudiced Plaintiff, including the disregard of newly discovered evidence confirming the Auto Assets sale and full payment, the exclusion of key affidavits and deposition testimony, acceptance of BMI’s late-filed motion without leave, denial of discovery on critical documents, and mischaracterization of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and deposition testimony. Each of these errors alone warrants reversal, and together they compel a finding that summary judgment was improper.

The substantive merits of Plaintiff’s claims—fraud, tortious interference, and breach of contract—are fully supported by documented evidence, including the Acceptance Letter, executed Bill of Sale, cashed payment check, and correspondence reflecting contradictory demands and unauthorized repossession (Exhibits 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, Plaintiffs Pretrial Statement and Exhibits filed 3-17-25, page #, 3380-3390, 3391-3391, 3392-3411, 3412-3460, 3461-3502)
). BMI’s conduct, characterized by intentional misrepresentations, wrongful interference with a valid contract, and breach of the loan agreement, also establishes entitlement to punitive damages under Ohio law, as these acts constitute independent torts causing substantial financial and emotional harm.

Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

  1. Reverse the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of BMI;
  2. Remand the case for full consideration of all affidavits, documents, and newly discovered evidence;
  3. Allow Plaintiff’s claims for compensatory and punitive damages to proceed; and
  4. Grant any further relief deemed just and proper, including sanctions for the withholding of evidence and procedural misconduct.

The record and cited exhibits demonstrate that Plaintiff’s claims are meritorious and that the trial court’s decision was contrary to Ohio law. Reversal and remand are necessary to ensure justice, prevent ongoing prejudice, and uphold the integrity of judicial proceedings.

WHEREFORE
Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

1.  Reverse the trial court’s Decision and Entry granting summary judgment to BMI;

2.  Remand the case for further proceedings, including consideration of the Auto Assets transaction and all newly discovered evidence;

3. Recognize that BMI’s withholding of evidence, interference with a valid contract, and misrepresentation materially affected the trial court’s decision;

4. In the event the Court finds that the original complaint (Exhibit O) was not properly incorporated into the Amended Complaint, recognize that Plaintiff may still assert claims—including fraud, tortious interference, and breach of contract—against BMI by adding BMI as a defendant in Carl Medley v. Auto Assets, Case No. 24CV007698;

5. Preserve Plaintiff’s rights to pursue damages for wrongful repossession, emotional distress, and punitive claims resulting from BMI’s conduct.

Respectfully Submitted,

_______________________________
Carl Medley

SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was served upon the following pursuant to Loc. R. 2(E) on this 5th day of September 2025 via email toMaria Marian Guthrie and Peter Stoecklein Defense For BMI

mguthrie@keglerbrown.com

pstoecklein@keglerbrown.com

65 East State Street, Suite 1800
Columbus, Ohio 43215

APPENDICES

KEY EXHIBITS CITED IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL

The following exhibits are part of the trial court record and are referenced in this brief to demonstrate that the grant of summary judgment overlooked material facts and improperly disregarded evidence favorable to appellant. I referenced the Plaintiffs Pretrial Statement and Exhibits filed 3-17-25, page #, 3380-3390, 3391-3391, 3392-3411, 3412-3460, 3461-3502 because it has all of the exhibits listed below.

Exhibit No. Description / Relevance
1 Payment schedule proving BMI routinely accepted late payments up to 55 days late (establishes course of dealing relevant to default).
3, 13, 22 Bills of Sale from Auto Assets, including the fully executed version (evidence of a completed short sale resolving the debt).
5, 20 Payment schedule and BMI Bates #BMI000130 confirming acceptance of Auto Assets’ check, later voided (evidence of wrongful interference).
6 Email from Jason Rigano admitting he voided the Auto Assets transaction and falsely claiming Auto Assets agreed to void it (tortious interference and fraud).
7, 19, 21 Discovery responses revealing BMI’s prior false statements denying documents related to the Auto Assets sale (withholding material evidence).
11, 12, 15 Condition reports and repair estimate confirming $6,000–$8,000 in damage to the Audi while in BMI’s possession (additional compensable harm).
16, 17 Conflicting deficiency notices (material disputes as to the amount and validity of the alleged debt).
2, 8, 28 Evidence of coercive, inconsistent loan offers at an interest rate of 17.75% (improper leverage inconsistent with loan terms).
18 Amended Complaint incorporating the Original Complaint as Exhibit O (procedural preservation of claims).
23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 38 Communications between BMI, Auto Assets, and appellant regarding repossession and pickup instructions (evidence of interference and improper control over the vehicle).
31–37, 39 Evidence of damages, including lost employment opportunities, impaired credit, lost wages, and related consequential harm flowing from BMI’s wrongful conduct.

Taken together, these exhibits establish multiple, independent grounds demonstrating that summary judgment in BMI’s favor was improper. Exhibits documenting the completed Auto Assets sale, including the executed bill of sale, the cashed check, and contemporaneous communications (Exs. 3, 5, 13, 20, 22, 24), directly contradict BMI’s position that no resolution of the loan occurred. Emails and internal communications (Exs. 6, 7, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 29, 30, 38) reveal that BMI knowingly interfered with a binding transaction and later misrepresented its own role and Auto Assets’ actions to appellant and to the court. Evidence of conflicting deficiency notices, coercive loan offers, and damage to the vehicle while under BMI’s control (Exs. 2, 8, 11, 12, 15–17, 28) create material disputes regarding both liability and damages. Additional exhibits (Exs. 18, 31–37, 39) confirm procedural compliance, quantify appellant’s losses, and rebut BMI’s affirmative defenses. Each of these materials was before the trial court and, under Ohio Civ. R. 56, had to be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. By failing to credit these exhibits and affidavits, the trial court resolved factual disputes against appellant rather than in his favor, constituting reversible error.

 

 

Close