STEM v. BCG EQUITIES LLC (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Amelia Stem appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment to BCG Equities, LLC (“BCG”). Stem argues that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to BCG. We disagree, and accordingly, we affirm.

Issue

[2] Stem raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to BCG.

Facts

[3] On October 2, 2024, BCG filed a complaint against Stem. BCG alleged that, in 2021, Stem purchased a vehicle and financed the purchase through Byrider Finance, LLC, d/b/a CNAC Finance (“Byrider Finance”). Stem later defaulted on her obligations, and the vehicle was repossessed and sold. In December 2023, BCG acquired the account from Byrider Finance, and Stem owed $5,022.56 to BCG.

[4] Stem filed an answer to the complaint and admitted that she previously entered into an automobile loan and the “automobile was sold to [Stem] in violation of Tennessee statues [sic] which led to repossession and voluntary relinquishment of said automobile.”¹ Stem alleged that she was unaware of BCG's ownership of the debt and that BCG's exhibits were conflicting.

[5] In December 2024, BCG filed a motion for summary judgment. BCG argued that it is the successor in interest to Byrider Finance and that Stem defaulted on her “contractual obligations resulting in the repossession and sale of the subject vehicle, leaving a principal balance due and owing in the amount of $5,022.56.” BCG designated an affidavit of J. Adam Dobberstein, an attorney fee affidavit, and the pleadings filed in the matter.

[6] On December 30, 2024, Stem filed a motion to deny the motion for summary judgment. Stem argued that: (1) BCG was not properly registered as a consumer debt collection agency with the Indiana Secretary of State; (2) certain portions of the original loan agreement were redacted; (3) BCG's exhibits contradict each other; and (4) the dealership that sold Stem the vehicle breached the sale contract. Stem designated no evidence in support of her response.

[7] After a hearing in March 2025, the trial court granted BCG's motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted judgment against Stem for $5,022.56, plus an e-filing service fee and attorney fees for a total judgment of $5,778.57. Stem now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Stem challenges the trial court's grant of summary judgment to BCG.² “We review summary judgment decisions de novo, and Trial Rule 56(C) supplies the framework.” Cave Quarries, Inc. v. Warex LLC, 240 N.E.3d 681, 684 (Ind. 2024). “The moving party is entitled to summary judgment only if the evidence it designates in support of its motion ‘shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Id. at 684-85 (quoting Ind. Trial Rule 56(C)). The purpose of summary judgment is to withdraw issues from the jury only when there are no genuine factual issues for the jury to decide. Id. at 685. “Summary judgment is available when the nonmovant cannot prove its claim based on the undisputed evidence[.]” Id.

[9] The summary judgment movant has the burden of making a prima facie showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Burton v. Benner, 140 N.E.3d 848, 851 (Ind. 2020). The burden then shifts to the non-moving party which must then show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. On appellate review, we resolve “[a]ny doubt as to any facts or inferences to be drawn therefrom ․ in favor of the non-moving party.” Id. “We limit our review to the materials designated at the trial level.” Gunderson v. State, Ind. Dep't of Nat. Res., 90 N.E.3d 1171, 1175 (Ind. 2018).

[10] Here, BCG designated evidence that: (1) Stem purchased a vehicle and financed the purchase through Byrider Finance; (2) Stem defaulted on her obligations, and the vehicle was repossessed and sold; (3) BCG acquired the account from Byrider Finance; and (4) Stem owed $5,022.56. Accordingly, BCG made a prima facie showing that it was entitled to summary judgment.

[11] In response, Stem filed a motion to deny the motion for summary judgment, but Stem did not designate any evidence. Indiana Trial Rule 56(C) provides that “[a] party opposing the motion shall also designate to the court each material issue of fact which that party asserts precludes entry of summary judgment and the evidence relevant thereto.” Mere speculation is insufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment. Cave Quarries, 240 N.E.3d at 685. “The non-movant may not rest upon the bare allegations made in the pleadings, but must respond with affidavits or other evidence setting forth specific facts showing that genuine issues are in dispute.” Gonzalez v. Ritz, 102 N.E.3d 910, 913 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied. Trial Rule 56(C) further provides: “Summary judgment shall not be granted as of course because the opposing party fails to offer opposing affidavits or evidence, but the court shall make its determination from the evidentiary matter designated to the court.”

[12] Stem filed no designated evidence in response to BCG's motion for summary judgment and failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact to preclude summary judgment. From the evidentiary matter designated to the trial court, we conclude that the trial court properly granted BCG summary judgment on its claim against Stem.

Conclusion

[13] The trial court properly granted summary judgment to BCG. Accordingly, we affirm.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Most of the relevant pleadings were not provided to us on appeal. Accordingly, we take judicial notice of the documents available on the Odyssey database. See Evid. R. 201(a)(2)(C).

2.   Stem proceeds pro se, and we, therefore, reiterate that “a pro se litigant is held to the same standards as a trained attorney and is afforded no inherent leniency simply by virtue of being self-represented.” Zavodnik v. Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 266 (Ind. 2014). “This means that pro se litigants are bound to follow the established rules of procedure and must be prepared to accept the consequences of their failure to do so.” Picket Fence Prop. Co. v. Davis, 109 N.E.3d 1021, 1029 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (citing Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983-84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)), trans. denied.

Tavitas, Judge.

Bailey, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.