Unifund CCR v. Chan

1. The Honorable Russell W. Bench, Senior Judge, sat by special
assignment as authorized by law. See generally Utah Code Jud.
Admin. R. 11-201(6).
2014 UT App 25
_________________________________________________________
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
UNIFUND CCR, LLC,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
SHUNG CHAN,
Defendant and Appellant.
Per Curiam Decision
No. 20130995-CA
Filed January 30, 2014
Fourth District Court, American Fork Department
The Honorable Thomas Low
No. 129105019
Shung Chan, Appellant Pro Se
Bryan W. Cannon, Attorney for Appellee
Before JUDGES JAMES Z. DAVIS, J. FREDERIC VOROS JR., and SENIOR
JUDGE RUSSELL W. BENCH.1
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Shung Chan appeals the trial court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of Unifund CCR, LLC (Unifund) on its
complaint to collect amounts due on a credit card account. This
case is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary
disposition. We grant the motion and affirm.

Unifund CCR v. Chan
20130995-CA 2 2014 UT App 25
¶2 Summary judgment is appropriate only when “there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact . . . and the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c). We
review the grant of summary judgment for correctness, as a
question of law, giving no deference to the district court’s legal
conclusions. See Basic Research, LLC v. Admiral Ins. Co., 2013 UT 6,
¶ 5, 297 P.3d 578.
¶3 Chan did not dispute that he opened a credit card account
with U.S. Bank, and in response to Unifund’s first motion for
summary judgment, he failed to provide support for his assertion
that the amount sought by Unifund was incorrectly calculated.
Chan challenged Unifund’s authority to collect on the account.
Following Unifund’s first unsuccessful summary judgment motion,
the only genuine dispute of material fact concerned Unifund’s
ownership of the account. This factual issue resulted from
Unifund’s initial failure to explain the sequence of events that led
to its ownership and assignment of the account by neglecting to
demonstrate that Pilot Receivables Management, LLC was its
affiliate and agent for purposes of acquiring accounts. Once this
omission was addressed in the second motion for summary
judgment, there was no remaining dispute of material fact to be
tried.
¶4 For the first time on appeal, Chan attempts to dispute facts
that he did not specifically dispute in the district court in his
responses to Unifund’s two motions for summary judgment.
When a motion for summary judgment is made and
supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party
may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of
the pleadings, but the response, by affidavits or as
otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial.

Unifund CCR v. Chan
20130995-CA 3 2014 UT App 25
Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c). However, even if these new allegations had
been raised below, they are insufficient to demonstrate a genuine
issue of material fact that would prevent summary judgment.
¶5 Chan’s claim that the district court did not address his
alleged defenses based upon the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and insufficient services is incorrect. The district court denied
Chan’s motions to dismiss and quash service early in the case and
was not required to address them again in the summary judgment.
Finally, the district court correctly denied the motion to alter or
amend the judgment as untimely under rule 59(a) of the Utah Rules
of Civil Procedure because it was not filed within ten days of
“entry” of the judgment, and the district court did not err in
denying the combined motion to set aside the judgment as lacking
any analysis under any subsection of rule 60(b) of the Utah Rules
of Civil Procedure.
¶6 We affirm the grant of summary judgment and the denial of
the postjudgment motions.