Midland Funding LLC, Respondent,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A17-0549

Midland Funding LLC,
Respondent,

vs.

Amaal Osman,
Appellant.

Filed January 29, 2018
Affirmed
Connolly, Judge

Hennepin County District Court
File No. 27-CV-16-5930

Jefferson Pappas, Messerli & Kramer P.A., Plymouth, Minnesota (for respondent)

Amaal Osman, Eden Prairie, Minnesota (pro se appellant)

Considered and decided by Florey, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Jesson,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
CONNOLLY, Judge
Appellant, a credit-card debtor, challenges pro se the summary judgment granted to
respondent, the creditor’s assignee, arguing that respondent did not have standing to bring
2
an action against appe llant. Because the district court did not err in concluding that
respondent had standing, we affirm.
FACTS
In 2008, appellant Amaal Osman appli ed for a c redit card issued by Synchrony
Bank. She made her last payment on the credit-card account in July 2014, after which her
account went into default.
Synchrony sold a pool of charge -off accounts that included appellant’s account to
respondent Midland Funding LLC. Respondent sued appellant in conciliation court for the
amount owed. Appellant replied that she had no relationship or contract with respondent
and that respondent therefore had no interest in her account and no standing to sue her. In
April 2016, the conciliation court entered judgment , without explanation, in appellant’s
favor.
From May to November 2016, appellant was in Kenya. In September, respondent
removed the case to the district court for a new trial and moved for summary judgment.
Appellant learned of this when she returned from Kenya and requested that the hearing on
the summary-judgment motion be postponed. Her request was granted, and the hearing
was held in January 2017. Appellant appeared pro se.
Respondent presented as evidence (1) the bill of sale whereby respondent purchased
from Synchrony B ank “the r eceivables as set forth in the [n]otification [f] iles,” (2) the
affidavit of sale of account by original c reditor stating that Synchrony “sold a pool of
charge-off accounts . . . to [respondent],” and (3) a document giving appellant’s name,
account number, last purchase date, address, phone numbers and last payment date.
3
Appellant argued to the district court that “I owed [Synchrony Bank] some money . . . but
I had no relationship with [respondent]” ; “[t]he only party that I had a relationship wit h
was Synchrony Bank, and they can sue me . . . .” ; and “[the bill of sale] doesn’t say my
name, anywhere. It’s between [respondent] and Synchrony Bank.” The district court
explained to appellant:
COURT: [Respondent has] your name on a document.
[APPELLANT]: Do they [have] my name on the bill of sale?
COURT: No. . . . [T]he bill of sale says [they]’re going to buy
a lot of debt. . . . [Y]ou had an account number that ended in
7279, and you had an account address and an apartment and a
ZIP code, and a phone number, and your name, and so this is
the sheet that had yours . . . .
. . . .
[APPELLANT]: But it doesn’t say in this bill of sale . . . . It
doesn’t say my name. . . .
COURT: Yes, it does. I mean, it says that the receivables,
quote, “as set for th in the notification files”, delivered to
[respondent]; so [respondent is] going to end up with a bill of
sale which is going to have a bunch of documents [attached] to
it that say . . . this is what we bought. It would not make any
sense for [respondent] to buy debt, and not know who owed it.
That would be silly. . . . [H]ow would they . . . ever collect it?
. . . .
[APPELLANT]: . . . I have no relationship with [respondent]
. . . . [T]he bill of sale and the affidavit [don’t] say my name.
COURT: Well, actually, it does, . . . if you read the document
as a whole . . . .

The district court granted respondent’s summary judgment against appellant for $2,688.
Appellant challenges the grant of summary judgment.1

1 In lieu of filing a brief, respondent notified this court by letter that it did not intend to file
a brief because the “economic realities of this case do not warrant the time and expense of
an appeal” and asked that the grant of summary judgment be affirmed.
4
D E C I S I O N
On an appeal from summary judgment, this court reviews de novo both whether
there is a genuine issue of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application
of the law. STAR Centers, Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P. , 644 N.W.2d 72, 77 (Minn.
2002). Appellant does not dispute that she had an account issued by Synchrony or that her
account was in default, and respondent provided documentation showing that it had
purchased a pool of accounts, including appellant’s account, from Synchrony. Thus, there
are no material facts in dispute. “When the facts relevant to standing are undisputed, the
standing inquiry raises a question of law subject to de novo review.” Olson v. State, 742
N.W.2d 681, 684 (Minn. App. 2007).
Based on appellant’s testimony, the district court found that she
questions the validity of the assignment or transfer of the debt
from Synchrony Bank to [respondent], asserting that she has
no relationship or contract with [respondent ], received no
notice of the assignment of her debt from Synchrony to
[respondent], and that [respondent] has not sufficiently proven
that it has purchased her debt.

However, appellant now states in her brief that, “The district court wrongfully assumed
that I was challenging the assignment of my account to a 3 rd party, here [respondent]. I
have never challenged the assignment. Rather, my argument rests on the fact that the
alleged bill of sale does not identify me personally.” But the district court explained to
appellant that she was personally identified on the list of accounts attached to the affidavit
that accompanies the bill of sale. The conflict between appellant’s testimony to the district
court that she had no relationship with respondent and her assertion on appeal that she
5
“never challenged” the assignmen t of her debt to respondent demonstrates her lack of
understanding of the law on this point.
Appellant continues to argue on appeal that her name is not on the bill of sale, so
respondent lacks standing to sue her. But there are no names on the bill of s ale itself:
appellant’s argument implies that respondent may not bring actions against any of the
defaulting account holders. Appellant does not explain why respondent would have
purchased a group of the accounts it could never hope to recover.
The district court noted that appellant “misunderstands what the law in Minnesota
is” and cited Gen. Underwriters, Inc. v. Kline, 233 Minn. 345, 350, 46 N.W.2d 794, 797 -
98 (1951) (“[A] debtor has no standing to question the validity of an assignment which is
accepted as valid between the creditor [here, Synchrony Bank] and his assignee [here,
respondent].”). Appellant does not address Gen. Underwriters in her brief and continues
to be unaware that it is not respondent who lacks standing to sue her but she who lacks
standing to challenge Synchrony Bank’s transfer to respondent of both appellant’s account
and the right to sue appellant.
Affirmed.