N.C. Ct. of Appeals: Midland Credit Management v. Mitchell- Procedural Errors Lead to Dismissal of Pro Se Consumer Case

Summary:

The North Carolina Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of Derrick Mitchell in a case brought against him by Midland Credit Management, Inc. for an unpaid credit card debt. The trial court had granted summary judgment in favor of Midland, ordering Mitchell to pay $13,790.19 plus interest. Mitchell, representing himself, appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court erred in multiple ways, including failing to rule on his motion to dismiss, granting summary judgment, and striking his counterclaims.

The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal due to substantial violations of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court found that Mitchell’s appeal was deficient in several ways, including failing to provide legal arguments, standards of review, or supporting legal authority for his claims. The court emphasized that appellate rules apply to all litigants, including those representing themselves, and that compliance is essential to maintaining the adversarial process. Because Mitchell’s violations impaired the court’s ability to conduct a meaningful review, the appeal was dismissed.

Commentary:

Midland v. Mitchell serves less as doctrinal development than a practical demonstration of the steep procedural terrain faced by consumer debtors. The decision, though unpublished, reinforces that the courthouse doors remain open only to those able to navigate increasingly complex procedural rules—rules that, for consumer debtors facing summary judgment on charged-off accounts, may prove as formidable as the debt itself.  

Even with fee shifting provisions in consumer rights statutes,  it seems like consumers struggle to not only find lawyers  who will bring these sorts of claims and counterclaims,  but even to get a  consultation  with an attorney about what rights and defenses they might have.

This case also reflects a broader trend: North Carolina’s courts continue to entertain lawsuits from debt buyers—often with scant original documentation—and grant summary judgments in the absence of a well-presented defense. While consumers can, in theory, raise powerful statutory and constitutional defenses, this decision exemplifies how such claims are easily extinguished if not procedurally packaged with precision.  

With proper attribution,  please share this post.