TD Bank USA, N.A. v. Benjamin Ree

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A26-0569

TD Bank USA, N.A.,
Respondent,

vs.

Benjamin Ree,
Appellant.

Filed September 8, 2026
Affirmed
Reyes, Judge

Sherburne County District Court
File No. 71-CV-25-915

Brian Melendez, Barnes & Thornberg LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

Benjamin Ree, Elk River, Minnesota (self-represented appellant)

Considered and decided by Connolly, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and
Rasmusson, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
REYES, Judge
In this appeal challenging the district court’s grant of respondent bank’s motion for
summary judgment, appellant argues that respondent failed to establish ownership of
appellant’s specific credit-card account after respondent acquired credit-card accounts
from the original owner. We affirm.

2
FACTS
Respondent TD Bank USA, N.A., commenced a breach-of-contract action against
self-represented appellant Benjamin Ree to recover unpaid amounts due on a consumer
credit-card account. Because the district court granted TD’s summary-judgment motion,
we recount the facts in the light most favorable to Ree as the nonmoving party. See Henson
v. Uptown Drink, LLC, 922 N.W.2d 185, 190 (Minn. 2019).
Ree opened a credit-card account with Target National Bank in 2009. 1 In 2013,
Target National Bank entered an assignment and assumption agreement with TD (the
“2013 agreement”), in which TD purchased “the Acquired Assets, including, without
limitation, each Private Label Account and Co-Branded Account owned by Target National
Bank.” The agreement explained that TD “shall be the sole and exclusive owner of the
Accounts” after the purchase.
Ree made his last payment on his credit-card account in January 2024. Three
months later, on April 3, 2024, TD “charged off” his account with an overdue balance Ree
owed to TD of $15,005.96. Three months later, TD served Ree with a breach-of-contract
complaint and summons. TD also sent an initial-disclosures letter to Ree around that same
time. Ree did not respond to either.
TD ultimately filed its complaint with the district court in June 2025. Shortly
thereafter, Ree filed an answer, a counterclaim, and a motion to compel arbitration and

1 The name of Ree’s credit card began as “Target Credit Card” and then later became
“Target Mastercard,” a sublabel of Target’s “REDcard” credit cards.

3
dismiss TD’s complaint. In each filing, Ree alleged that, by filing its complaint, TD
violated an arbitration clause in Ree’s credit-card contract.
The district court held a hearing on Ree’s motion to compel arbitration and dismiss
the complaint. Because Ree failed to show that his credit-card contract contained an
arbitration clause, the district court denied his motion.
TD then filed a motion for summary judgment. TD accompanied its motion with
several affidavits, the 2013 agreement, Ree’s original and updated credit-card contracts,
and several years of Ree’s account statements. In opposition to the motion, Ree argued
that his credit-card contract required arbitration and attached a Target debit-card contract
containing an arbitration clause, though the contract was dated after the charge- off of his
credit-card account.
After a hearing, the district court granted TD’s summary-judgment motion.2 Ree
then filed a motion to set aside or vacate the judgment, which the district court heard and
then denied.
This appeal follows.
DECISION
Ree argues that the district court erred by granting summary judgment for TD
because TD failed to “conclusively establish[] ownership” of Ree’s credit-card account
“sufficient to eliminate all genuine issues of material fact.” We disagree.

2 The district court also dismissed Ree’s counterclaim. Ree does not challenge this
dismissal.

4
Appellate courts “review the grant of summary judgment de novo.” Montemayor v.
Sebright Prods., Inc. , 898 N.W.2d 623, 628 (Minn. 2017). Summary judgment is
appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.01.
To preclude summary judgment, a nonmoving party must rely on more than
“unverified and conclusory allegations,” Funchess v. Cecil Newman Corp., 632 N.W.2d
666, 672 (Minn. 2001), and instead “must produce evidence that is ‘sufficiently probative
with respect to an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case to permit reasonable
persons to draw different conclusions,’” Metro. Transp. Network, Inc. v. Collaborative
Student Transp. of Minn., LLC, 6 N.W.3d 771, 778 (Minn. App. 2024) (quoting DLH, Inc.
v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 71 (Minn. 1997)), rev. denied (Minn. July 23, 2024).
Ree presented no evidence about TD’s ownership of Ree’s credit-card account, let
alone “sufficiently probative” evidence. Id. (quotation omitted). While Ree contends that
TD failed to produce “account-specific transfer documentation,” he does not cite any
authority for the proposition that the absence of this documentation precludes summary
judgment. Ree made a similar argument to the district court in which he also failed to cite
supporting evidence or legal authority.
In support of its motion for summary judgment, TD presented two affidavits from
individuals serving at Target Enterprise, Inc., a company that “services and maintains the
business records, including account information, of all Target credit cards on behalf of
[TD].” (Emphasis added.) In the first affidavit, “a custodian of records” explained that
Ree originally opened a credit-card account with Target National Bank but, in 2013, TD

5
“acquired all rights to the credit-card account and all obligations owing on the account.”
Based on a review of “the records relating to [Ree’s] account,” the custodian stated that
TD charged off the account on April 3, 2024, and Ree “is indebted to [TD] owing a balance
of 15,005.96.” The custodian of records attached a copy of the 2013 agreement to their
affidavit.
In the second affidavit, a “Vendor Manager” corroborated the first affidavit’s
timeline of events based on a “review of the business records of Target Enterprise, Inc.”
The manager attached to their affidavit copies of Ree’s original credit-card contract from
2009 and “all of the changes that were made to the terms” of the contract before TD charged
off the account. One change included a notice explaining that, “[e]ffective March 2013,
TD . . . purchased the credit card portfolio of Target National Bank, including your Target
Credit Card Account.”
TD also presented multiple account statements bearing Ree’s name, address, and
credit-card account number; the 2013 agreement; and documentation showing the last
payment on and final unpaid balance of Ree’s account. This evidence established that Ree
opened a credit-card account with Target National Bank in 2009, TD purchased Ree’s
account in 2013, Ree thereafter failed to satisfy his contractual obligation to make
payments, and Ree owed $15,005.96 on the account. Ree produced no evidence “to permit
reasonable persons to draw different conclusions,” Metro. Transp. Network, 6 N.W.3d at
778 (quotation omitted), and his unsupported allegations questioning the validity of the
assignment are insufficient to preclude summary judgment, see Funchess, 632 N.W.2d at

6
672. We therefore conclude that the district court did not err by granting TD’s summary-
judgment motion.
Affirmed.