Summary
Here's a summary of this appellate brief filed in the Georgia Court of Appeals (Case No. A26A1879):
Case
Jason Cerbone v. Bank of America, N.A., Georgia Court of Appeals, Case No. A26A1879. Filed May 18, 2026. Jason Cerbone appeals pro se as his own attorney, this time as the defendant/debtor below.
Background
Bank of America sued Cerbone in March 2023 on a University of Georgia-branded credit card, claiming a $74,471.69 balance. Cerbone admitted having the card but denied owing that amount, asserting the charges were largely fraudulent. He has proven in the record that starting November 21, 2019 he reported to the Bank a pattern of unauthorized charges (mostly Amazon Marketplace, Amazon Digital Services, Audible, Kindle, plus QuickBooks and Xero charges) totaling $26,008.09 initially and eventually $41,994.03. He documented an extensive paper trail: multiple letters to the Bank, a Savannah police identity-theft report, an FTC Identity Theft Report, a CFPB complaint, credit-bureau freezes, and repeated follow-up — yet the Bank repeatedly denied his fraud claims with boilerplate letters that never identified the specific charges or merchants at issue, and never explained its investigation.
Procedurally
The Bank moved for summary judgment in June 2023; Cerbone (initially through his attorney-father, then pro se as a licensed attorney himself from September 2024) opposed it and, in January 2025, moved for leave to add an omitted compulsory counterclaim (breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, FDCPA and Reg Z/TILA violations) and demanded a jury trial. The Bank didn't respond to that motion for nearly 11 months; the trial court (Judge Coolidge) denied leave to amend without explanation in February 2026, then granted partial summary judgment to the Bank on liability in March 2026, setting only a damages hearing (which never occurred) before this appeal was filed.
Two Errors
- Denial of leave to add the counterclaim was an abuse of discretion. Georgia law liberally allows amendments to add compulsory counterclaims absent a showing of prejudice (citing MCG Dev. Corp. v. Bick Realty, Talbot Construction v. Triad Drywall, SRM Group v. Travelers). The Bank never argued prejudice, the case was still early in discovery, and the proposed counterclaim arose from the same transaction as the Bank's claim, so the trial court's unexplained denial was reversible error.
- Summary judgment on liability was improper, and even if not, denying a jury trial on damages was error.
- Under Regulation Z (12 C.F.R. § 1026.12), a cardholder's liability for unauthorized "card not present" charges is capped/eliminated, and issuers must conduct a reasonable investigation of fraud claims (with specific listed steps) before imposing liability; the brief argues the Bank never showed it investigated reasonably, and Cerbone documented that he retained physical possession of the card throughout, undercutting any claim the charges were authorized.
- Regulation Z (§ 1026.12(c)(1)) also lets a cardholder withhold payment on disputed amounts when the issuer fails to resolve the dispute satisfactorily, creating fact issues as to how much (if anything) Cerbone actually owes.
- Separately, even assuming liability, Georgia's constitutional jury-trial right (Ga. Const. Art. I, § I, Par. XI(a)) and O.C.G.A. § 9-11-56(c) require that damages be tried to a jury, not decided at a "hearing," per Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery v. Nestlehutt and Sibley v. Fulton DeKalb Collection Serv.
Relief sought: Reversal of the March 9, 2026 partial summary judgment order, reversal of the February 19, 2026 order denying leave to add the counterclaim, and remand for a jury trial. Word count: 4,195 (within the Rule 24 limit).
