COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 77458 SALLIE MAE SERVICING CORP., : JOURNAL ENTRY ETC. : AND Plaintiff-appellee : OPINION : -vs- : : AMIR H. SOAS : : Defendant-appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: OCTOBER 26, 2000 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from the Parma Municipal Court Case No. 99 CVF 900 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: SEAN F. BERNEY, ESQ. DOUGLASS & ASSOCIATES CO. P.O. Box 40480 Cleveland, Ohio 44140-0480 For Defendant-Appellant: BRUCE P. BOGART, ESQ. Complete Legal Services 1300 Bank One Center 600 Superior Ave. Cleveland, Ohio 44114 -2- ANN DYKE, A.J.: Defendant Dr. Amir Soas appeals from the order of the trial court which granted summary judgment to plaintiff Sallie Mae Servicing Corporation in plaintiff's action for collection upon a promissory note. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. Plaintiff, an affiliate of the federally chartered Student Loan Marketing Agency, filed this complaint on a promissory note on April 6, 1999. Plaintiff alleged that on August 16, 1985, defendant executed a promissory note to obtain a student loan in the amount of $5,000 and defaulted in repayment. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant owed $6,067.40 on the principal, $3,373 in interest which continued to accrue at 8% per annum, and $190 for attorney fees. Defendant denied liability and asserted that he had repaid the loan. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment and demonstrated that plaintiff had obtained loan no. 175393 in order to attend Sackler Medical School. Plaintiff also submitted evidentiary materials which indicated that the aforementioned principal and interest amounts were due, and that it had prepared correspondence directed to defendant concerning the Fresh Start program to assist certain debtors. In opposition, defendant submitted an affidavit in which he averred that he had obtained only one student loan and had repaid it. In addition, defendant purported to authenticate two letters. The first letter indicated that defendant's account is now considered paid in full and contained defendant's social security number. The account is not further identified, however. -3- The second letter indicated that account no. 2236726679 has been closed. It is undisputed that this number is not referenced at all on the loan for which plaintiff seeks repayment. On December 1, 1999, the trial court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Defendant now appeals and assigns a single error for our review. Defendant's assignment of error states: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Within this assignment of error, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in granting plaintiff summary judgment since his sworn affidavit indicates that he obtained one student loan and it has been repaid. In opposition, plaintiff insists that defendant has not refuted that he obtained more than one student loan, that the documentary evidence submitted by defendant does not demonstrate that this particular loan is unpaid and that defendant also requested forbearance from repayment of this loan. Summary judgment is a procedural device used to terminate litigation and must therefore be awarded with caution, resolving all doubts in favor of the party opposing the motion. Osborne v. Lyles(1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 326, 333. In order for summary judgment to be properly rendered, it must be determined that: (1) no genuine issue of material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from such evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and, reviewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to the party. -4- Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327. See, also, State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 447, 448. The burden of establishing that there are no genuine issues of material fact to be litigated is upon the party moving for summary judgment. Turner v. Turner (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 337, 340. If the moving party meets this burden, the non-moving party must then produce evidence pursuant to Civ.R. 56 setting forth specific facts which show that there is a genuine triable issue. State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, supra, at 449. In this instance, plaintiff presented evidence that defendant obtained the student loan at issue, failed to repay it, and owed the amounts and attorney fees set forth in the complaint. Plaintiff also demonstrated that it had corresponded with defendant regarding its Fresh Start program. In opposition, defendant averred that he had obtained only one student loan which he had repaid. Defendant also offered a letter which indicated that defendant's account is now considered paid in full. This letter contained defendant's social security number but no other identifying information. Defendant also offered a second letter which indicated that account no. 2236726679 has been closed. It is undisputed that this number is not referenced at all on the loan for which plaintiff seeks repayment. From the foregoing, the trial court could correctly determine that defendant failed to demonstrate any genuine issue of material fact regarding whether he repaid the student loan. Although -5- defendant presented evidentiary material to refute plaintiff's motion, defendant's affidavit was contradicted by his other evidentiary materials. That is, despite defendant's claim that he had only obtained one student loan and had repaid it, it is undisputed that he obtained the loan at issue and his other evidentiary documents demonstrated that he obtained another loan with a completely different account number. The remaining letter concerning defendant's repayment of a loan did not contain any identifying information. In short, defendant's evidentiary materials were not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. The assignment of error is without merit. Affirmed. This cause is affirmed. It is, therefore, considered that said appellee recover of said appellant its costs herein. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court 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. LEO M. SPELLACY, J., AND KENNETH A. ROCCO, J., CONCUR ANN DYKE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE -6- N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R.22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R.22. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App. R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section 2(A)(1). .