Motion for Summary Judgment in Unifund CCR, LLC, an Ohio Limited Liability Company v. Winder W Elias| Trellis.Law

On March 03, 2020 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Unifund Ccr Llc, and Elias, Winder W, for Contract - Consumer/Commercial/Debt in the District Court of Fort Bend County.

Preview
Filed
GR 4/25/2022 5:53 PM
Beverley McGrew Walker
District Clerk
Fort Bend County, Texas
Ashley Alaniz
CAUSE NO. 20-DCV-271959

UNIFUND CCR, LLC, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,

Vv. 458TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

WINDER W ELIAS,
Defendant. FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS

PLAINTIFF’, MOTI FOR SUMMARY JUDGME) T

COMES NOW, Plaintiff UNIFUND CCR, LLC and files this Motion for Summary

Judgment and in support thereof, would respectfully show unto the Court as follows:

I BACKGROUND FACTS

In the usual course of business, Defendant entered into an agreement with Citibank, NA

for the credit card account that forms the basis of this suit. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant

was the primary cardholder under that account. Defendant requested that the account currently

bearing account number XXXX-XXXX-XXXX (“Account”) be opened, and the account

was opened.

The Account was used to make purchases of goods and/or services and/or to receive cash

advances. Defendant was properly billed for payment of the extension of credit of the Account,

but Defendant failed to pay the amounts due and owing of $6,996.39.

Citibank, NA assigned the credit account to Distressed Asset Portfolio III, LLC on or about

4/4/2018. Distressed Asset Portfolio III, LLC to UNIFUND CCR, LLC on or about 11/28/2018.

See Exhibits Bates Stamp P100004 through Bates Stamp P100007.

On or about 03/04/2020 Plaintiff filed its Original Petition against Defendant alleging

breach of contract, stated, and common law debt claims. Defendant filed his Original Answer

generally denying Plaintiff's claims.

Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
IL. GROUNDS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff moves for traditional summary judgment pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil

Procedure 166(a)(c) on the grounds that there is no genuine issue of material fact that Defendant

is liable for breach of contract, stated account, and common law debt. Specifically, the summary

judgment evidence conclusively establishes that Defendant’s actions constitute a breach of

contract, stated account, and common law debt which were the sole proximate cause of Citibank,

NA damages. Plaintiff is the successor in interest to Citibank, NA and is thus, the proper party to

bring this action.

Il. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment on its breach of contract, stated account, and

common law debt causes of action because the competent summary judgment evidence proves that

there is no genuine issue of material fact that: 1) Defendant signed a contract with Citibank, NA

for an extension of credit to Defendant; 2) Citibank, NA did provide that extension of credit to the

Defendant with the expectation that Defendant would repay the extension of credit; and 3)

Defendant never repaid the extension of credit. See Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co.

v. Vowell Const., Co., et. al., 341 S.W.2d 148, 150 (Tex. 1960); See also General Telephone Co.

of Southwest v. Blacksher, 742 S.W.2d 465, 468 (Tex. App. - Houston [14" Dist.] 1987, writ

denied).

Iv. SUMMARY JUDGMENT EVIDENCE

Plaintiff's Motion is supported and established by the following summary judgment

evidence, which it incorporates as if fully set forth herein:

Exhibit 1: Business Records Affidavit of Kristin Torbeck. The Affidavit references the

following business records, which are also attached:

Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
Bill of Sale from Citibank, NA to Distressed Asset Portfolio III, LLC (Bates
Stamp P100004-P100005)
Bill of Sale from Distressed Asset Portfolio HI, LLC to UNIFUND CCR, LLC
(Bates Stamp P100006-P100007)
Credit card Last Statement dated May 2017 (Bates Stamp P100008-P100010)
Credit card Last Payment Received Statement (Bates Stamp P1000011-
P100013)
Correspondence, Account Closing Letter. (Bates Stamp PI00014)

2. Credit Card Agreement / Terms & Conditions (Bates Stamp P100015-P100027)

Vv. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

A. Standard for Summary Judgment under Rule 166.

The movant in a motion for traditional summary judgment must establish that there is no

genuine issue of material fact and as such the judgment is appropriate as a matter of law. Union

Pump Co. v. Allbritton, 898 S.W.2d 773 (Tex. 1995). In determining whether a material fact exists

to preclude summary judgment, the evidence favoring the nonmovant is taken as true and all

reasonable inferences are indulged in favor of the nonmovant. Nixon v. Mr. Property Management

Co., 690 S.W.2d 546, 548-549 (Tex. 1985). Once the movant produces evidence entitling it to

summary judgment, the burden shifts to the non-movant to present evidence creating a fact issue.

Walker v. Harris, 924 S.W.2d 375, 377 (Tex. 1996). The non-movant may not rest upon mere

allegations or denials, but the response, by affidavits or otherwise, must set forth the specific facts

showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Torres v. Western Cas. & Surety

Co., 457 §.W.2d 50, 52-53 (Tex. 1970).

B Causes of Action

1, Breach of Contract.

The elements of a cause based on a written debt or contract are: a) there was a valid

agreement; b) Citibank, NA performed or tendered performance; c) the defendant breached; and

Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
d) Citibank, NA suffered damages. Tamuno Ilfiesimama v. Haile, No. 01-15-00829-CV, 2017 WL

1173885, at *7 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 30, 2017, pet. denied); Woodhaven Partners,

Ltd. v. Shamoun & Norman, L.L.P., 422 8.W.3d 821, 837 (Tex. App. - Dallas 2014, no pet.);

Husson v. Schwan’s Sales Enterprises, Inc., 896 S.W.2d 320, 326 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.]

1995, no writ); see also Valero Marketing & Supply Co. v. Kalama International, L.L.C., 51

S.W.3d 345, 351 (Tex. App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (Summary judgment in favor of

defendant-seller in breach-of-contract case was proper where plaintiff did not prove he tendered

performance). Therefore, to prove its cause of action against Defendant for breach of contract,

Plaintiff must show: 1) Citibank, NA and Defendant had a valid agreement; 2) Defendant received

and made purchases on credit extended by Citibank, NA; 3) Defendant failed to repay the extension

of credit, and 4) Citibank, NA suffered damages due to Defendant’s failure to repay the extension

of credit.

a. Citibank, NA and Defendant had a valid agreement for the extension of
credit.

The contract will prove itself unless its execution or authority is specifically denied by

swom denial. Tex. R. Civ. P. 93(7); see also Rockwall Commons Associates, Ltd. v. MRC

Mortgage Grantor Trust I, 331 S.W.3d 500, 506 (Tex. App. — El Paso 2010, no pet.) (In failing to

file verified denials as to execution of written instruments, and in failing to file verified denial of

assignment of any of those instruments, defendants admitted validity of instruments and their

assignments). Defendant’s Original Answer provided a general denial but did not specifically deny

the existence of the contract for the credit account at issue by a sworn denial. Therefore, there is

no genuine issue of material fact that Citibank, NA and Defendant had a valid agreement for the

extension of credit.

b. CITIBANK, NA performed or tendered performance.

Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
The plaintiff must plead and prove that he has performed or tendered his obligations under

the contract. See Krayem v. USRP (PAC), L.P., 194 S.W.3d 91, 94 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2006, pet.
denied); Valero Marketing & Supply Co. v. Kalama International, L.L.C., 51 S.W. 3d 345, 351-54

(Tex. App. Houston [Ist Dist.] 2001, no pet.). The credit card statements are indisputable

evidence that Plaintiff performed its obligations by extending credit to Defendant. See Exhibits

Bates Stamp P100008 through P100013. Pursuant to those credit card statements, there is no

genuine issue of material fact that Citibank, NA performed or tendered performance.

¢ Defendant breached the agreement.

“Breach” has been defined, in part, as the failure to perform any promise which forms a

whole or part of any agreement, including the refusal of a party to recognize the existence of an

agreement or the doing of something inconsistent with its existence. De Santis v. Wackenhut Corp.,

732 S.W.2d 29, 34 (Tex. App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, aff'd in part, rev’d in part on other

Grounds). De Santis v. Wackenhut Corp., 793 S.W.2d 670 (Tex. 1990). “Whether a party has

breached a contract is a question of law for the judge, not a question of fact for the jury.” Lafarge

Corp. v. Wolff; Inc., 977 S.W.2d 181, 186 (Tex. App. — Austin 1998, pet. denied) (citing Garza v.

Southland Corp., 836 S.W.2d 214, 219 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no writ)). “When

the evidence is undisputed regarding a person’s conduct under a contract, the court as a matter of

law determines whether the conduct shows performance or a breach of a contract obligation.”

Lafarge Corp., 977 S.W.2d at 186.

Defendant used the extension of credit issued by Citibank, NA for Defendant’s benefit, and

Defendant failed to pay the balance that is due and owing. Repayment of the extension of credit is

Defendant’s obligation under the Agreement. Plaintiff has provided credit card statements showing

Defendant’s failure to repay the extension of credit per the terms of the Agreement. See Exhibits

Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
(Bates Stamp P100008 through P100013). Therefore, there is no genuine issue of material fact that

Defendant breached the agreement.

d. Citibank, NA suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s breach.

A written contract presumes consideration for its execution. Burges v. Mosley, 304 S.W.3d

623, 628 (Tex. App. — Tyler 2010, no pet.); Doncaster v. Hernaiz, 161 S.W.3d 594, 603 (Tex.

App. — San Antonio 2005, no pet.). See also Simpson v. MBank Dallas, N.A., 724 8.W.2d 102, 107

(Tex. App. — Dallas 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (guaranty was written, signed by guarantor, and recited that it

was executed “for value received”; therefore, the guaranty presumed consideration, and the burden was on

guarantor to plead and prove the absence of consideration). Lack or failure of consideration must be

specifically pleaded by verified pleading. Tex. R. Civ. P. 93(9).

Defendant used the extension of credit issued by Citibank, NA for Defendant’s benefit, and

Defendant failed to pay the balance that is due and owing. Repayment of the extension of credit is

Defendant’s obligation under the Agreement. Plaintiff
has provided credit card statements showing

Defendant’s failure to repay the extension of credit per the terms of the Agreement. See Exhibits

(Bates Stamp P100015 through P100027). As evidenced by the unpaid credit card statements, there

is no genuine issue of material fact that Citibank, NA suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s

breach.

Based on the foregoing undisputed summary judgment evidence, there is no genuine issue

of material fact that Defendant is liable to Plaintiff, as successor in interest of Citibank, NA, for

breach of contract. Defendant entered into a contractual agreement with Citibank, NA for the

extension of credit, that credit was extended and used by Defendant, and Defendant never repaid

that extension of credit, thereby causing the damages made the basis of this lawsuit. Accordingly,

this Court should grant Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on its breach of contract claim.

2. Stated Account claim.

Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
An account stated is an agreement between parties who have had previous transactions of

monetary character that all the items of the account representing such transactions, and the balance

struck, are correct, together with a promise, express or implied, for the payment of such balance.

Eastern Development & Inv. Corp. v. City of San Antonio, 557 S.W.2d 823, 824-25 (Tex. Civ.

App. — San Antonio 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.) citing (1 C.J.S. Account Stated § 1a; see also Scofield

v. Lilienthal, 268 S.W. 1047 (Tex. Civ. App. — Waco 1925, no writ)). A party is entitled to relief

for a stated account when (1) transactions between the parties give rise to indebtedness of one to

the other; (2) an agreement, express or implied, between the parties fixes an amount due; and (3)

the one to be charged makes a promise, express or implied, to pay the indebtedness. Dulong v.

Citibank (S.D.), N.A., 261 S.W.3d 890, 893 (Tex. App. — Dallas 2008, no pet.). The evidence in

the Court’s possession indicates that pursuant to the Contract. Citibank, NA extended credit on

account number XXXX-XXXX-XXXX-h which Defendant utilized to make purchases for

which he promised to repay Citibank, NA but has failed to do so.

a The Transactions Between Citibank, NA and Defendant
gave arise to Defendant’s Indebtedness.

Citibank, NA extended credit to Defendant, more particularly defined as account number

XXXX-XXXX-XXXX 4 that Defendant used to for Defendant’s benefit. See Exhibits Bates

Stamp P100008 through Bates Stamp P100013.

b An Express Agreement Between the Citibank, NA and
Defendant Fixed the Amount owed by Defendant.

Citibank, NA extended credit to Defendant, more particularly defined as account number

XXXX-XXXX-XXXX fi that Defendant used to for Defendant’s benefit. See Bates Stamp

P100008 through Bates Stamp P100013. Defendant was obligated to repay that extension of credit.

The amounts and payment terms are reiterated for Defendant’s benefit on the credit card

statements. There is no genuine issue of material fact that there was an express agreement between

Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
Citibank, NA and Defendant that fixed the amount owed by the Defendant.

C. Defendant Made an Express Promise to Pay the Indebtedness.

Citibank, NA extended credit to Defendant, more particularly defined as account number

XXXX-XXXX-XXXX
{QM that Defendant used to for Defendant’s benefit. See Bates Stamp
P100008 through Bates Stamp P100013. Defendant was obligated to repay that extension of credit.

The amounts and payment terms are reiterated for Defendant’s benefit on the credit card

statements. Therefore, there is no genuine issue of material fact that Defendant made an express

promise to pay the indebtedness.

In conclusion, the Defendant’s transactions on Citibank, NA extension of credit gave rise

to Defendant’s indebtedness. Pursuant to the Contract, there was an express agreement between

Defendant and Citibank, NA that fixed the amount due on the extension of credit as well as an

express agreement that Defendant would repay the indebtedness. Therefore, Defendant’s actions

constitute a claim for stated account which proximately caused the damage to Citibank, NA.

Plaintiff is the successor in interest to Citibank, NA. Accordingly, this Court should grant

Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on its stated account claim.

3. Common Law Debt.

Defendant is indebted to Plaintiff for a common law debt. Citibank, NA extended credit to

Defendant that was in turn used by Defendant but was not repaid. The elements to show that

Defendant is indebted to Plaintiff for a common law debt are that: 1. Defendant received the use

and benefit of the extension of credit sued for; 2. Defendant ratified or accepted the benefit of the

extension of credit; 3. Defendant became obligated to repay the extension of credit, whether

through written obligation or other obligation; and 4. Defendant failed to pay the indebtedness.

Since it is undisputed that Defendant requested and received an extension of credit from Citibank,

Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
NA bearing account number XXXX-XXXX-XXXX hd which Defendant has failed to repay

despite entering into a contract that promised repayment, the elements of a common law debt have

been established.

a Defendant Received the Use and Benefit of the Extension
of Credit Sued for and Ratified or Accepted the Benefit of
that Extension of Credit

Citibank, NA extended credit to Defendant, more particularly defined as account number

XXXX-XXXX-XXXX that Defendant used to for Defendant’s benefit. See Exhibits Bates

Stamp P100015 through Bates Stamp P100027. Pursuant to the credit card statements, there is no

genuine issue of material fact that Defendant has received the use and benefit of the extension of

credit sued for and ratified or accepted the benefit of that extension of credit.

b Defendant became Obligated to Repay the Extension of
Credit, whether through Written Obligation or Other
Obligation, and Defendant Failed to Pay the Indebtedness.

Citibank, NA extended credit to Defendant, more particularly defined as account number

XXXX-XXXX-XXXX fi thar Defendant used to for Defendant’s benefit. See Exhibits Bates

Stamp P100008 through Bates Stamp P100013. Defendant was obligated to repay that extension

of credit. The amounts and payment terms are reiterated for Defendant’s benefit on the credit card

statements. There is no genuine issue of material fact that Defendant became obligated to repay

the extension of credit, whether through written obligation or other obligation, and Defendant

failed to pay the indebtedness.

The elements of a common law debt claim have been admitted by the Defendant and there

is, therefore, no genuine issue of material fact that Defendant is liable for common law debt.

Defendant’s actions constitute common law debt which proximately caused the damage to

Citibank, NA. Plaintiff is the successor in interest of Citibank, NA. Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to

Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
summary judgment on its claim for common law debt. Accordingly, this Court should grant

Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment on its common law debt claim.

VI. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has collected and presented herein evidence sufficient for the Court to determine

that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to Defendant’s liability for breach of contract,

stated account, and common law debt claims which caused the damages to Citibank, NA made the

basis of this suit. It is undisputed that Defendant requested Citibank, NA extend credit to Defendant

in exchange for Defendant’s promise to repay. It is also undisputed that Defendant failed to repay

the amounts due and owing. Defendant’s failure to pay the amounts due and owing caused damages

to Citibank, NA in the amount of $6,996.39. Plaintiffis the successor of interest of Citibank, NA.

As a result, Defendant should be found liable to Plaintiff for breach of contract, stated account,

and common law debt claims, and he should be ordered to compensate Plaintiff for Citibank, NA’s

damages incurred as a result of Defendant’s actions.

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff requests that this court consider

the merits of this motion and the arguments of counsel, and that it be awarded judgment as a

matter of law against Defendant in an amount of $6,996.39, and further that it be granted such

other and further relief at law or in equity to which it might be justly entitled.

Respectfully Submitted,

LIPPMAN RECUPERO, LLC

/s/ David W. Lippman
David W. Lippman
State Bar No. 24095559
PO Box 13928
Tucson, AZ 85732
Telephone: (520) 762-4036
Facsimile: (888) 870-2807
txlitigation@lippmanrecupero.com

Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
10
Attorney for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, David Lippman, hereby certify that on this April 25, 2022, I served a true copy of the
foregoing pleading on all parties and attorneys of record in accordance with Tex. R. Civ. P. 21a.

/s/ David W. Lippman
David W. Lippman

Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
ll
CAUSE NO. 20-DCV-271959

UNIFUND CCR, LLC, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff

Vv.

WINDER W ELIAS,
Defendant. § FROT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS

AFFIDAVIT UNDER SECTION 18.001, CIVIL PRACTICES AND REMEDIES
CODE. V.T.C.A., OF PERSON IN CHARGE OF RECORDS OR PERSON
OR INSTITUTION RENDERING SERVICES

STATE OF QQ _ §
“AQUN io CouNry §
Before me, the undersigned authority, personally appeared the undersigned affiant, who,

being by me duly sworn, deposed as follows:

"My name is Kristin Torbeck . Lam over 18

years of age. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and all facts stated herein are

true and correct. I am of sound mind and capable of making this affidavit. I am the person in charge

of and custodian of records at UNIFUND CCR, LLC an Ohio Limited Liability Company.

UNIFUND CCR, LLC is the successor in interest to CITIBANK, NA the financial

institution which gave Winder W Elias the credit card account forming the basis of this lawsuit.

Winder W Elias defaulted on an obligation to repay the amounts due under the credit card account

and has failed and refused to make the payments due and owing.

Despite notice of the default, there continues to be a amount due in the sum of $6,587.72,

plus accrued interest at 0.0000% as provided for in the terms and conditions of the credit card

account, for a total outstanding balance of $6,587.72.

BUSINESS RECORDS AFFIDAVIT
Page 1 of 2
Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibits PI00001
Attached to this affidavit are records that provide an itemized statement either prepared by

and/or adopted by UNIFUND CCR, LLC, of the credit advanced to Winder W Elias, which have

become a part of the records of UNIFUND CCR, LLC.

I have reviewed the attached records which are a part of this Affidavit and are kept by me

in the regular course of business. The information contained in the records was transmitted to me

in the regular course of business by an employee or representative of UNIFUND CCR, LLC who

had personal knowledge of the information. The records were made at or near the time or

reasonably soon after the time that the service was provided. The records are the original or an

exact duplicate of the original.”

Further, Affiant sayeth not,

Ova
Oo Tonigne
(signature)
Kristin Tortpeck
Affiant (printed name)

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me on this \\_ dayof OC 4, Qa.

“Or.Public, Sta oO
StGt
Notary's Printed Name
My commission expires:
Ait)
ARI
JOSH GREEN

aw WZ Ve
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF OHIO
Comm. Expires
10-23-2023
Fe
Recorded in
Hamilton County

BUSINESS RECORDS AFFIDAVIT Page 2 of 2
Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibits P100002
Name: WINDER W ELIAS
Account Number:

Table of Contents
1 CITIBANK, NA to DISTRESSED ASSET PORTFOLIO III, LLC
2. DISTRESSED ASSET PORTFOLIO III, LLC to UNIFUND CCR, LLC

Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibits P100003
Contract ID: UNSML
Document 1D: UN8MUM
Document ID: 032118UN

BILL OF SALE AND ASSIGNMENT

THIS BILL OF SALE AND ASSIGNMENT dated April 04, 2018, is by Citibank, N.A., a national
banking association organized under the laws of the United States, located at 701 East 60" Street
North, Sioux Falls, SD 57117 (the “Bank") to Distressed Asset Portfolio III, LLC (“Buyer”) as
successor by assignment to Pilot Receivables Management, LLC, and Citibank, N.A. (hereinafter
referred to as “Bank”), organized under the laws of the Ohio, with its headquarters/principal place
of business at 10625 Techwoods Circle, Cincinnati, OH 45242 ("Buyer").

For value received and subject to the terms and conditions of the Master Purchase and Sale
Agreement dated August 09, 2017 and Addendum No. 4 dated April 3, 2018, between Buyer and
the Bank (the "Agreement"), the Bank does hereby transfer, sell, assign, convey, grant, bargain,
set over and deliver to Buyer, and to Buyer's successors and assigns, the Accounts described in
Exhibit 1 and the final electronic file.

Citibank, N.A.

By:
Signature)

Name: SeanM. SvP

11800 NW Aribesades See, Sta. 400

Distressed Asset Ponfolio It, LLC 080917

Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibits P100004
Exhibit 1

Extract from Exhibit 1, provided by CITIBANK, NA in connection with its sale of accounts to
DISTRESSED ASSET PORTFOLIO III, LLC on 04/04/2018:

Account name: WINDER W ELIAS
Last 4 digits of account number: xenon co

Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibits P100005
BILL OF SALE

THIS BILL OF SALE is effective as of November 28, 2018 between DISTRESSED ASSET
PORTFOLIO III, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company (“Assignor”), and UNIFUND CCR, LLC, an
Ohio limited liability company (“Assignee”).

Assignor, for value received transfers, sells, conveys, grants and delivers to Assignee free, clear
and unencumbered title to the Accounts described on Attachment A and all of Assignor’s rights thereto
effective as of November 28, 2018. The sale is without recourse to Assignor.

[DISTRESSED ASSET PORTFOLIO III, LLC]

By: Oe
Name: Jessica Stevens

Title : Inventory Manager

Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibits P100006
Attachment A

Extract from Attachment A, provided by DISTRESSED ASSET PORTFOLIO III, LLC in connection
with its sale of accounts to UNIFUND CCR, LLC on 11/28/2018; originally obtained from account data
provided by CITIBANK, NA in connection with its sale of accounts to DISTRESSED ASSET
PORTFOLIO III, LLC on 04/04/2018:

Account name: WINDER W ELIAS
Last 4 digits of account number: XXXXXXXX:

Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibits P100007
COUT MT inn) cel 1a dee OF La |
olla
WINDER W ELIAS How to reach us
Member Since 2012 Account number ending i www.citicards.com
Billing Period: 04/13/17-O5/10/17 1-866-696-5673 (TTY: 1-800-325-2865)
BOX 6500 SIOUX FALLS, SD 57117

Your account is past due. Please pay at
least the minimum payment due, which
Minimum payment due: $6,703.61 includes a past due amount of $1247.66 and
New balance: $6,703.61 an overlimit amount of $403.61.

Payment due date: 06/08/17 Account Summary
Previous balance $6,587.72
Payments -$0.00
Credits -$0.00
Minimum Payment Warning:!f you make only the minimum payment each
period, you will pay more in interest and it will take you longer to pay off your Purchases +$0.00
balance. For example: Cash advances +$0.00
If you make no additional You will pay off the And you will end up Fees +$§0.00
charges using this card balance shown on this ey estimated
and each month you pay... statement in about... Interest +$115.89
Only the minimum payment 1 month(s) $6,704
New balance $6,703.61

For information about credit counseling services, call 1-877-337-8188. Credit Limit
Credit limit $6,300
includes $1,400 cash advance limit

Savings ot

Spotlight
Your Citi Simplicity Lifetime Savings:
$2,321.05
See page 3 to view your
Savings Summary.

Please print Address Changes on the reverse side

Pay your bill from virtually anywhere Minimum payment due $6,703.61
with the Citl Mobile” App and Cit!” Online
New balance $6,703.61
To download:
Text ‘Appt5' to MyCitl (692484) Payment due date 06/08/17
or go to your device's app store.
Or visit www.citicards.com
Amount enclosed:

000000 MC 32 AO Account number ending i

WINDER W ELIAS CITI CARDS
15411 RIVERSIDE GROVE DR PO BOX 78045
HOUSTON TX 77083-5535 Phoenix, AZ 85062-8045

Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibits P100008
WINDER W ELIAS www.citicards.com Page 2 of 3
1-866-696-5673 (TTY: 1-800-325-2865)

Account Summary out
Trans Post
=date date Description
carat a ——— a Amount
eared
Fees charged Savings Spotlight
Total fees charged In this billing period $0.00 Your Citi Simplicity®
Savings Summary
Interest charged
Citi Simplicity Lifetime Savings
Date Bescri tion Amount
caer a a —— BF interest $1,818. 05 |
Os/10 INTEREST CHARGED To ‘STANDARD PURCH $115.89
Bi No Late Fee $440.00
Total Interest charged In this billing period $115.89
@ Citi Easy Deals: $63.00
|
2017 totals year-to-date

feveeneseee Total fees chi d in 2017
eee $0.00
Total interest charged in 2017 $594.09

Interest charge calculation Days in billing cycle 28
Your Annual Percentage Rate (APR)is the annual interest rate on your account. en
Annual percen’ nce subject
Balance type rate (A ? fo Interest rate Interest charge

Standard Purch
—— 2.74% (V). $6,643.43 (D) $115.89
-
Standard Adv 22.74% (V) $0.00 $0.00 Col) ae a ee ds
Your Annual Percentage Rate (APR) is the annual interest rate on your account. APRs followed Ky cha Re} )
by (V) may vary. Balances followed by (D) are determined by the daily balance method
(including current transactions). See Account Messages
for more information about
Account messages Savings Spotlight
SAVINGS SPOTLIGHT DETAILS
INTEREST: If you have promotional balances on your account, we have
estimated your savings. This savings is the difference between the interest
that was assessed against the promotional balances using the promotional
APRs and the estimated interest that would have been assessed against these
same balances using the Enhanced Purchase APRs. This savings amount does
not include any balance transfer fees. This savings is from your billing period
covered by this statement.

NO LATE FEE: Savings on late fee is determined by reviewing your payments
and calculating what your late fee would have been on your card without this
benefit. If you paid late prior to May 2014, savings on late fee is determined by
using a $15 late fee (if your minimum payment due was less than $15, we used
that amount as the savings arnount). This savings is from your billing period
covered by this statement.

CITI EASY DEALS: If you made a purchase on Citi Easy Deals, your savings is
the difference between the retail price and the price you paid. This savings is
from the prior calendar month.

CITI PRICE REWIND: If you received a Citi Price Rewind refund, savings is the
refunded amount. This savings is from the prior calendar month.
CITI SIMPLICITY LIFETIME SAVINGS: The savings from interest, no late fee,
Citi Easy Deals and Citi Price Rewind since you became a Citi Simplicity
cardmember. This savings amount does not include any balance transfer fees.
Please note that if we received your pay by phone or online payment between
5 p.m. ET and midnight ET on the last day of your billing period, your payment
will not be reflected until your next statement.

Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibits P100009
WINDER W ELIAS www.citicards.com Page3 of 3
1-866-696-5673 (TTY: 1-800-325-2865)

Please be sure to pay on time. If you submit your payment by mail, we suggest
you mail it no later than 06/01/2017 to allow enough time for regular mail to
reach us.

Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibits P100010
COUT Me Tinn)
Lied 1 dee OF La |
olla

a
WINDER W ELIAS How to reach us
Member Since 2012 Account number ending in: www.citicards.com
Billing Period: O1M12/17-O2A0/17 1-866-696-5673 TTY: 1-800-325-2865
BOX 6500 SIOUX FALLS, SD 57117

Your account is past due. Please pay at

Minimum payment due: $917.64 least the minimum payment due, which
includes a past due amount of $693.77 and
New balance: $6,343.35 an overlimit amount of $43.35.
Payment due date: 03/08/17 Account Summary
Previous balance $6,305.83
Payments $80.00
Credits -$0.00
Minimum Payment Warning:|f you make only the minimum payment each
period, you will pay more in interest and it will take you longer to pay off your Purchases +$0.00
balance. For example: Cash advances +$0.00
If you make no additional You will pay off the And you will end up Fees +$0.00
charges using this card balance shown on this au estimated
and each month you pay... statement in about... Interest +$117.52
Only the minimum payment 22 year(s) $15,925
New balance $6,343.35

For information about credit counseling services, call 1-877-337-8188. Credit Limit
Credit limit $6,300
includes $1,400 cash advance limit

Savings on

Spotlight
Your Citi Simplicity Lifetime Savings:
$2,251.05
See page 3 to view your
Savings Summary.

Please print Address Changes on the reverse side

Pay your bill from virtually anywhere Minimum payment due $917.64
with the Citl Mobile” App and Cit!” Online
New balance $6,343.35
To download:
Text ‘Appt5' to MyCitl (692484) Payment due date 03/08/17
or go to your device's app store.
Or visit www.citicards.com
Amount enclosed:

000000 MC 32 AO Account number ending im

WINDER W ELIAS CITI CARDS
15411 RIVERSIDE GROVE DR PO BOX 78045
HOUSTON TX 77083-5535 Phoenix, AZ 85062-8045

Motion for Summary Judgment Exhibits PIOO0I1
WINDER W ELIAS www.citicards.com Page 20f 3
1-866-696-5673 TTY: 1-800-325-2865

Account Summary by og
Trans. Post
wate sate Description amount
Payments, Credits and Adjustments Savings Spotlight
Your Citi Simplicity®
Savings Summary
Fees c

Case Info

Judge

Chad E. Bridges Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

April 25, 2022

Case Filing Date

March 03, 2020

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion,Ex Parte: Unifund CCR, LLC, an Ohio Limited Liability Company v. Winder W Elias

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties