A recent court decision has upheld a lower court’s ruling in a case involving a former student of Columbus State Community College (CSCC) who was sued for unpaid tuition. The Second Appellate District of Ohio affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of CSCC, meaning the student, Alex T. Chanthunya, must pay the outstanding debt.
The case centered around a breach-of-contract complaint filed by CSCC against Chanthunya. The college alleged that Chanthunya had failed to pay his student account, owing $6,722.76 for tuition, fees, and/or loan proceeds. The trial court initially entered a default judgment against Chanthunya, but it was later vacated. Chanthunya then unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the complaint.
CSCC later filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by Chanthunya’s failure to respond to requests for admission, as well as an affidavit from a collection supervisor employed by the Ohio Attorney General’s Office. The trial court sided with CSCC, deeming the matters at issue in the unanswered requests for admission as admitted. Based on these admissions and the collection supervisor’s affidavit, the court found no genuine issue of material fact and ordered Chanthunya to pay the debt, plus interest and costs.
Chanthunya appealed the decision, raising several arguments. The appellate court addressed each of these in its opinion.
Challenging the Service of Documents
One of Chanthunya’s main arguments was that he wasn’t properly served with CSCC’s motion for summary judgment and its requests for admission. He claimed he never enrolled in the court’s electronic-filing system and didn’t consent to email service. He argued that, therefore, CSCC was required to serve him with paper copies of the documents.
The appellate court disagreed. It explained that while personal delivery or mailing are acceptable methods of service, they aren’t the only ones. Under Ohio Civil Rule 5(B)(2)(f), electronic service via email is permitted. Since Chanthunya provided an email address on his answer to the complaint, CSCC was allowed to send the documents there. The court found that service was complete upon transmission to the email address provided.
The court did acknowledge that CSCC failed to provide a paper copy of the requests for admission, as required by Ohio Civil Rule 36(A). However, the court cited legal precedent to explain that this omission didn’t invalidate the service itself. The remedy for failing to provide a paper copy is that the recipient has good cause for an extension of time to respond, not that the service is invalid.
The Impact of “Deemed Admissions”
Another key issue in the case was the “deemed admissions.” Because Chanthunya didn’t respond to CSCC’s requests for admission, the court treated the matters in those requests as admitted facts. These admissions included that he had enrolled at the college, incurred charges, and hadn’t paid the debt.
Chanthunya argued that the trial court should have allowed him to withdraw these admissions. However, the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision not to do so. The court noted that Chanthunya never specifically requested to withdraw the admissions or presented any evidence to challenge them. His motion for summary judgment focused on a statute-of-limitations defense and didn’t contest the facts established by the deemed admissions.
Other Arguments Rejected
Chanthunya also argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact remained in dispute. He claimed he never enrolled at CSCC, obtained educational services, or owed a debt. The appellate court found these arguments were contradicted by the deemed admissions. Based on the scope of Chanthunya’s admissions, the trial court properly entered summary judgment against him.
Finally, Chanthunya contended that the trial court wrongly concluded he was contractually or equitably obligated to pay the tuition. The appellate court rejected this argument as well, stating that it was foreclosed by the deemed admissions. Since Chanthunya admitted to enrolling, incurring charges, and not paying, the court found no error in the trial court’s decision.
The appellate court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s judgment, meaning Chanthunya is still responsible for the debt to CSCC.