Discover Bank, Respondent,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A24-1332

Discover Bank,
Respondent,

vs.

Leon M Wiechmann,
Appellant.

Filed June 23, 2025
Affirmed
Reyes, Judge

Meeker County District Court
File No. 47-CV-24-104

Julie R. Landy, Paige A. Naig, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP, Minneapolis,
Minnesota (for respondent)

John E. Mack, New London Law, PA, New London, Minnesota (for appellant)

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Cochran, Judge; and Schmidt ,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
REYES, Judge
Appellant-cardholder challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment and
award of $6,342.85 to respondent -bank, arguing that a dispute of material fact and a
superseding statute made summary judgment improper. We affirm.

2
FACTS
Appellant Leon Wiechmann held a credit card that respondent Discover Bank issued
to him. An account statement reflects $5,200 in charges for the February 21, 2022 to March
20, 2022 billing period. Discover sent Wiechmann several statements notifying him of
these charges, but Wiechmann did not pay the outstanding charges. Discover wrote off the
debt in October 2022.
In February 2023, Discover served Wiechmann with a summons and complaint
seeking recovery of the outstanding balance, which then totaled $5,902.85 with
accumulated interest. Later that month, Wiechmann served an answer in which he alleged
that (1) he made all required payments on the card; (2) he had not used the card since
August 2021; (3) someone may have compromised the account ; and (4) Discover never
informed him of the relevant charges or issues with his account.1 In August 2023, Discover
served discovery requests on Wiechmann, including several requests for admission.
Wiechmann did not respond to any of the discovery requests.2
In February 2024, Discover filed the complaint in district court. The next month,
Wiechmann filed a motion for summary judgment. The only supporting documentation
that Wiechmann offered was bank-account statements that showed payments to Discover
predating the time of the relevant charges. He also submitted an affidavit in which he

1 Wiechmann additionally raised a counterclaim seeking $50,000 in damages. This
counterclaim is not at issue on appeal.
2 At the summary-judgment hearing, counsel for Wiechmann stated that he never received
the discovery requests. Wiechmann did not bring a motion to withdraw or amend the
admissions resulting from his failure to respond to the requests for admissions nor does he
raise this issue on appeal.
3
stated, “I have made no charges on a Discover Card since 2020. I have had no Discover
Card since about 2020. Someone else was making unauthorized charges on this account.
I informed Discover that someone was making unauthorized charges on it. I received no
response except this lawsuit.” Discover subsequently filed a summary-judgment motion
to which it attached the discovery requests and Wiechmann’s account statements. The
district court granted Discover’s summary-judgment motion, determining that Wiechmann
failed to establish a dispute of material fact and that Discover established liability under
the account-stated doctrine. This appeal follows.
DECISION
I. Standard of Review

“Summary judgment is appropriate if ‘there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Metro. Transp. Network,
Inc. v. Collaborative Student Transp. of Minn., LLC. , 6 N.W.3d 771, 778 (Minn. App.
2024) (quoting Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.01), rev. denied (Minn. July 23, 2024). Appellate courts
review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment “to determine whether there
are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court erred in its application of
the law.” Montemayor v. Sebright Prods., Inc., 898 N.W.2d 623, 628 (Minn. 2017)
(quotation omitted). Further, appellate courts “view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was granted.” STAR Ctrs., Inc. v.
Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., 644 N.W.2d 72, 76-77 (Minn. 2002) (citations omitted).

4
II. The district court properly determined that Wiechmann failed to establish a
dispute of material fact.

Wiechmann asserts that his affidavit created a dispute of material fact that made
summary judgment improper. We disagree.
To establish a dispute of material fact and “defeat a properly supported motion for
summary judgment, a nonmoving party must offer significant probative evidence.”
Mountain Peaks Fin. Servs. v. Roth-Steffen, 778 N.W.2d 380, 387 (Minn. App. 2010), rev.
denied (Minn. Apr. 28, 2010). In so doing, the nonmoving party “must demonstrate at the
time the motion is made that specific facts are in existence which create a genuine issue for
trial.” Erickson v. Gen. United Life Ins. Co. , 256 N.W.2d 255, 259 (1977). We have
previously held that “self-serving affidavits that contradict other testimony generally are
not sufficient to create a fact issue for trial.” Mountain Peaks Fin. Servs., 778 N.W.2d at
388. Relatedly, the supreme court has held that, in an account-stated case, an affidavit
attesting that the nonmoving party “continuously objected to the [moving party’s]
statements and accountings” was “general in nature” and “insufficient” to prevent summary
judgment. Erickson, 256 N.W.2d at 258.
In Wiechmann’s affidavit, he merely attested that he did not incur the relevant
charges, that he did not have a Discover Card since about 2020, and that he informed
Discover about these charges. Absent in this affidavit and in his other summary-judgment
materials is any information or documentation to support these vague statements, such as
what specific efforts he took to make Discover aware of the disputed charges or close his
5
account, when he contacted Discover, how he contacted Discover, and who he contacted.
We therefore conclude that Wiechmann failed to show a genuine issue of material fact.
III. The district court properly determined that Discover established Wiechmann’s
liability under the account-stated doctrine.

Wiechmann next argues that the district court improperly decided that he is liable
for the account balance under the account-stated doctrine. We are not convinced.
“An account stated is a manifestation of assent by a debtor and creditor to a stated
sum as an accurate computation of an amount due the creditor.” Mountain Peaks Fin.
Servs., 778 N.W.2d at 387 (quotation omitted). The account-stated doctrine allows a
claimant to recover a debt upon showing “(1) a prior relationship as debtor and creditor,
(2) . . . mutual assent between the parties as to the correct balance of the account, and (3) a
promise by the debtor to pay the balance of the account.” Id. However, an account stated
is only prima facie evidence of the accuracy of the account and liability, and a party may
challenge an account stated by showing clear and convincing evidence of fraud or mistake.
Erickson, 256 N.W.2d at 259. We analyze each prong in turn.
A. Creditor-Debtor Relationship
Under the first prong, the parties do not dispute that the record supports that they
had a prior relationship as creditor and debtor. Although Wiechmann contests whether
there is presently a creditor-debtor relationship, that issue is immaterial because the
account-stated inquiry merely addresses whether there was a prior relationship as a debtor
and creditor. See Mountain Peaks Fin. Servs. , 778 N.W.2d at 387. Further, Wiechmann
6
presents no information other than a self-serving statement in his affidavit that he no longer
used the relevant card and closed his account with Discover.
B. Mutual Assent to Account Balance
Turning to the second prong, a creditor can show mutual assent to the accuracy of
the account balance either through an admission by the debtor or through implied
acquiescence by the debtor’s retention of an account statement without objecting within a
reasonable time. Meagher v. Kavli, 88 N.W.2d 871, 879 (Minn. 1958).
Here, Wiechmann admitted to the correctness of the balance by failing to respond
to Discover’s requests for admissions. Discover served on Wiechmann the following
requests for admission: “[t]hat the Monthly Periodic Billing Statements for the charge card
are genuine” and that “[t]here remains an unpaid principal amount owing to [Discover] of
$5,902.85 under the Terms and Conditions.” Failing to respond to a request for an
admission constitutes an admission, Minn. R. Civ. P. 36.01, and these admissions are
conclusively established “unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of
the admission,” Minn. R. Civ. P. 36.02. Although Wiechmann contends that he never
received the requests for admission, the record does not indicate that he moved to withdraw
or amend these imputed admissions. Wiechmann therefore admitted to the correctness of
the account balance.
C. Promise to Pay Balance on Account
Wiechmann also failed to respond to requests for admission that he admit the
genuineness of the card’s terms and conditions, that he agreed to be bound by those terms,
and that he defaulted under the terms and conditions by failing to make the required
7
payments. The terms and conditions require Wiechmann to “pay [Discover] for all
amounts due on [his] Account.” Because Wiechmann failed to respond to these requests,
he has admitted them. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 36.
We conclude that the district court did not clearly err by finding that Discover
established each element of the account- stated claim, which entitled Discover to recovery
on the account balance. Nor did Wiechmann raise a dispute of material fact that would
prevent summary judgment. We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary
judgment to Discover.3
Affirmed.

3 Wiechmann additionally appears to argue that Discover is unable to recover from him
because it failed to follow procedures under a federal statute. Because Wiechmann failed
to present this argument to the district court, we decline to consider it on appeal. See Thiele
v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (“A reviewing court must generally consider
only those issues that the record shows were presented [to] and considered by the trial court
in deciding the matter before it.” (quotation omitted)).