DCI CREDIT SERVICES INC v. COON (2026)

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

DCI CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff and Appellee v. Christopher COON, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20260012

Decided: October 01, 2026

Daniel J. Nagle, Mandan, ND, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief. Christopher Coon, self-represented, Williston, ND, defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.

[¶1] Christopher Coon appeals from the district court's judgment awarding DCI Credit Services $4,405.61 ($4,269.61 principal plus $136.00 costs) and dismissing his counterclaim. On appeal, Coon asserts DCI “lacked jurisdiction” to pursue its claim.

[¶2] Christopherson's Tin-Lizzy Auto Body, Inc. performed automotive work on Coon's vehicle after it was damaged in an accident. After the work was completed, the other driver's insurance company sent Coon a check in the amount of $4,269.61 to pay the final bill. Coon did not pay the bill. Tin-Lizzy assigned the account to DCI for collection. DCI served Coon with a summons and complaint. After the district court entered and vacated default judgment, Coon answered and counterclaimed, seeking $6 million. The court held a bench trial and entered an order for judgment including its findings of fact and conclusions of law and judgment awarding DCI $4,405.61 and dismissing Coon's counterclaim.

[¶3] Coon identifies the issue as whether DCI “lacked jurisdiction” to pursue him for money damages. Although he uses the term “jurisdiction,” Coon's argument is that he did not authorize Tin-Lizzy to work on his vehicle. The district court found Tin-Lizzy provided the insurer an estimate and that both the insurer and Coon authorized the work in the estimate.

[¶4] “In an appeal from a bench trial, the district court's findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of review[.]” Hofer v. Paulson, 2026 ND 111, ¶ 18, 36 N.W.3d 863. “A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is induced by an erroneous view of the law, if no evidence exists to support the finding, or if, on the entire record, we are left with a definite and firm conviction a mistake has been made.” Id. Based on the record, the district court's factual finding Coon authorized Tin-Lizzy to repair the vehicle is not clearly erroneous.

[¶5] We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

Per Curiam.

[¶6] Lisa Fair McEvers, C.J. Jerod E. Tufte Jon J. Jensen Douglas A. Bahr Mark A. Friese

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network