X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Carolyn Jones opened a credit card account with Citibank NA in December 1998. For more than six years, Jones used the card to purchase and finance merchandise, food, clothing, tickets to sporting events, a trip to Hawaii and other items. Jones also paid portions of the outstanding balance on the account during most of that time. In spring 2004, however, Jones’ payments were less than the minimum required by Citibank, and in May 2004, she stopped repaying the debt altogether. Citibank sued Jones in October 2004 to recover the remaining portion of the unpaid account balance, $8,914.15. With its original petition, Citibank included requests for disclosures and admissions. Jones timely responded to this first set of requests and filed an answer asserting several affirmative defenses and a counterclaim. On June 10, 2005, Citibank served Jones with a second set of requests for admissions. Jones’ responses to the requests were due 30 days later, but according to Citibank, Jones did not mail the responses until July 25, 2005; thus, they were deemed admitted. In response, Citibank filed a traditional summary judgment motion regarding its contract claim against Jones and a no-evidence summary judgment motion regarding Jones’ affirmative defenses and counterclaim. Jones responded to the motions but did not move to withdraw her deemed admissions. Consequently, the trial court granted all of Citibank’s summary judgment motions. Jones appealed only the traditional summary judgment ruling regarding the contract dispute. HOLDING:Affirmed. In her first and fourth issues, Jones complains that the trial court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment based solely on her deemed admissions, because no contract between Jones and Citibank existed in the first place. The second set of admissions, however, negated any attempt by Jones to deny the existence of a contract, the court stated. Jones’ deemed admissions show that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether Jones entered into a written agreement with Citibank, had a credit card account with Citibank, used the card to purchase items or failed to pay her bill. Jones conceded that the card account was hers and did not challenge the admissibility of the card agreement, but she instead argued that she had no contract with Citibank, because the agreement was “unsigned, unilateral, [and] disputed.” Because Jones failed to dispute Citibank’s evidence that she entered into a credit card agreement with Citibank, that the account was hers, or that she used the account, and because Jones failed to provide evidence contradicting the validity of the card agreement under Texas, South Dakota or federal law, the court held that the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of Citibank. In her second and third issues, Jones argued that even if a contract existed, Citibank violated that contract by failing to submit the dispute to arbitration. But the court found that Jones had waived her right to elect arbitration of the dispute. OPINION:Livingston, J.; Livingston, Holman and Gardner, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.