COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 69300 HENRY J. FANT : : Plaintiff-appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION BANK ONE, CLEVELAND N.A., ET AL.: : Defendant-appellees : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : DECEMBER 14, 1995 OF DECISION : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CV-288658 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: For defendant-appellees: HENRY J. FANT, PRO SE TERRY J. WALRATH, ESQ. P.O. Box 14833 600 Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 P.O. Box 91308 Cleveland, OH 44101 - 2 - PATTON, C.J. Plaintiff-appellant, Henry Fant appeals the trial court's ruling granting defendant-appellee, Bank One, Cleveland's motion for summary judgment. On May 1, 1995, Fant filed a complaint in the common pleas court seeking a declaratory judgment requesting the court to declare the legal rights between Fant and Bank One. Fant had written a check on his account at Bank One and made payable to the Clerk of the Cleveland Municipal Court in the amount of $30.00. Fant claimed that the Clerk of Court did not properly endorse the check and therefore Bank One should send the check back to the Clerk of Court for proper endorsement. Bank One filed a motion for summary judgment with an attached affidavit from Maria Vargas, which stated the following: The undersigned, Maria Vargas, being first duly cautioned and sworn deposes and says that the following facts are true as she verily believes: I am the supervisor of the Parking Violations Bureau of the Cleveland Municipal Clerk of Court's Office. I have held that position for seven years. Attached to this affidavit as Exhibits A and B are copies of the front and back of a check written to the Cleveland Clerk of Court by Henry J. Fant. This check was drawn on Bank One, Cleveland in the amount of $30.00. It is dated March 16, 1995. I have carefully examined the front and back of this check. The typewritten numbers and letters in the endorsement section on the back of this check constitute the endorsement of the Clerk of this Court. This check was deposited - 3 - into an account held by the Clerk of this Court at Society National Bank, and the amount of the check ($30.00) was credited toward the obligation owed in this Court by Henry J. Fant. The trial court granted Bank One's motion for summary judgment. Fant maintains that the trial court erred when it granted Bank One's motion for summary judgment because Vargas' affidavit was not based on her own personal knowledge and a material issue of fact exists with respect to whether the Clerk of Courts' endorsement is under the Uniform Commercial Code. Civ.R. 56(E) clearly states that affidavits supporting a motion for summary judgment shall be made on personal knowledge. Vargas stated in her affidavit that she has been the supervisor of the Parking Violations Bureau of the Cleveland Municipal Clerk of Court's Office for seven years. Vargas carefully examined the check and stated that the typewritten numbers on the check were the endorsement from the Clerk's Office. After a thorough review of Vargas' affidavit we find that it was based on her personal knowledge. Next, we address Fant's claim that a material issue of fact exists as to the endorsement on the check. R.C. 1303.24(A)(1) provides: "Indorsement means a signature, other than that of a signor as maker, drawer or acceptor, that alone or accompanied by other words is made on an instrument for any of the following purposes: (a) To negotiate the instrument; - 4 - * * * R.C. 1303.41(B) defines "signature" and states: "A signature may be made manually or by means of a device or machine and by the use of any name, including a trade or assumed name, or by a word, mark, or symbol executed or adopted by a person with present intention to authenticate a writing." It is axiomatic that a motion for summary judgment shall only be granted when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment shall not be granted unless it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion is made. In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317. Moreover, upon motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civ. R. 56, the burden of establishing that material facts are not in dispute, and that no genuine issue of fact exists, is on the party moving for summary judgment. Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St. 2d 64, 66. However, in that Civ. R. 56(E) requires that a party set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial, such party must so perform if he is to avoid summary judgment. Van Fossen v. Babcock & Wilcox Co. (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 100, at paragraph seven of the syllabus. - 5 - Viewing the underlying facts in a light most favorable to the Fant we conclude no genuine issue of material fact exists. The typewritten numbers in the endorsement section of the check clearly fall within the meaning of R.C. 1303.41(B). Accordingly, Fant's assigned errors are overruled. - 6 - It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant their costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Court of Common Pleas to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JAMES D. SWEENEY, J. DAVID T. MATIA, J., CONCUR CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN T. PATTON N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, .