A Franklin County appellate panel affirmed a trial court’s judgment in favor of First Bank of Ohio, which sought to collect on an auto loan that was in default.

The Tenth District Court of Appeals panel held that the Franklin County Common Pleas Court neither lacked jurisdiction to rule on the complaint nor did it err in admitting certain evidence as Mark Vidal, 28, of Columbus had asserted in his appeal.

“In addition to the lack of citations to the record, appellant’s allegations were devoid of any supporting case law,” the three-judge panel wrote per curiam. “Thus, with neither record evidence nor legal support for appellant’s claims, we are unable to conclude the court abused its discretion.”

On Jan. 26, 2021, Vidal executed and delivered to First Bank a consumer promissory note and security agreement in which he granted the bank a security interest in the 2016 Hyundai Sonata he was financing through a $15,634 auto loan from the financial institution, case summary provided.

In a complaint filed Dec. 5, 2023, First Bank maintained it had fully complied with the note but Vidal had defaulted on the loan, having missed the April 12, 2023, payment and all subsequent payments.

First Bank declared the balance immediately due and payable, and claimed in its complaint that Vidal owed $6,084 plus an interest rate of 14.69 percent per year from Sept. 27, 2023.

The bank sought a judgment to recoup the amount plus interest and possession of the vehicle, summary continued.

Vidal filed an answer on Dec. 28, 2023, denying all allegations contained in the complaint and a counterclaim seeking reimbursement for litigation costs and damages for claims of lost wages and emotional distress. He admitted that he had ceased making payments on the loan after the car had been stolen, summary detailed.

The bank filed an answer to the counterclaim, and Vidal filed numerous motions related to the court’s jurisdiction over the matter, the decision outlined.

On Feb. 6, 2024, First Bank filed a motion for summary judgment in favor of its claims and against appellant’s counterclaims.

Vidal responded with a filing to oppose the motion April 10, 2024.

The trial court ultimately granted First Bank’s motion for summary judgment Oct. 17, 2024, ordering Vidal to pay the outstanding loan amount plus interest.

Vidal subsequently appealed.

“All of the available evidence shows appellant ceased payment due on a promissory note to First Bank after his car was stolen,” the panel continued. “Appellant even conceded that point in a filing before the trial court. For that reason, this case no longer involves a genuine issue of material fact. Seeing as the parties do not dispute the relevant facts of this case, and seeing as those facts could lead to no conclusion other than appellant owes First Bank payment on the promissory note, we find the court did not err in granting First Bank’s motion for summary judgment.”

Regarding Vidal’s assertion that the trial court’s entry of summary judgment was against the manifest weight of the evidence, the panel — citing the appellate court’s precedent in Hamilton v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2007-Ohio-1173 — characterized such a challenge as a non sequitur “because, on summary judgment, a court may not weigh the evidence.

“Appellate courts may summarily overrule assignments of error seeking reversal of summary judgment based on the manifest weight of the evidence,” the panel concluded.