Opinion
NO. 2014-CA-000332-MR
05-01-2015
ROBERT CHILDERS APPELLANT v. EDUCAP, INC. APPELLEE
BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Robert Timothy Childers, pro se Sadieville, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: William Scott Stinnett Patrick James Kilburn Louisville, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPEAL FROM HARRISON CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE JAY DELANEY, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 12-CI-00258
OPINION
AFFIRMING
BEFORE: COMBS, JONES, AND MAZE, JUDGES. MAZE, JUDGE: Robert Childers appeals from a summary judgment by the Harrison Circuit Court in favor of Educap, Inc. (Educap) in a collection action. Childers argues that summary judgment was not appropriate because Educap failed to prove the existence or the amount of the debt. However, Educap filed a properly supported motion for summary judgment, and Childers failed to provide any affirmative evidence challenging Educap's proof. Hence, we affirm the entry of summary judgment.
On October 25, 2012, Educap filed a complaint alleging that Childers was indebted to it in the amount of $16,875.09, plus accrued interest. The underlying promissory note and most-recent payment and balance sheet were attached as exhibits to the complaint. Childers filed a pro se answer to the complaint stating only, "I do not believe I owe these people this amount of money."
Thereafter, Educap filed a motion for summary judgment, pointing out that Childers had not denied the loan or that it was in default. Educap also noted that Childers failed to respond to its discovery requests and requests for admissions. The trial court initially granted the summary judgment, but then later set it aside on Childers's motion. Educap then renewed its motion for summary judgment and included copies of the promissory note signed by Childers. Childers again denied the amount owed, and argued that summary judgment was not appropriate because Educap had not proven the existence of the debt.
On January 31, 2014, the trial court granted summary judgment for Educap. The court stated that Childers had neither admitted nor denied the existence of the debt, and had provided no affirmative evidence challenging Educap's right to summary judgment. The court entered a judgment for Educap in the amount of $16,875.09, plus accrued interest of $697.98. Childers now appeals.
The sole question presented on appeal is whether Educap was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. "The proper function of summary judgment is to terminate litigation when, as a matter of law, it appears that it would be impossible for the respondent to produce evidence at the trial warranting a judgment in his favor." Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Center, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476, 480 (Ky. 1991). Summary judgment is appropriate "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, stipulations, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show 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." CR 56.03. The record must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment and all doubts are to be resolved in his favor. Steelvest, 807 S.W.2d at 480. The trial court must examine the evidence, not to decide any issue of fact, but to discover if a real issue exists. Id. Since a summary judgment involves no fact-finding, this Court's review is de novo, in the sense that we owe no deference to the conclusions of the trial court. Scrifres v. Kraft, 916 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Ky. App. 1996).
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
Childers again argues that Educap failed to prove the existence of the loan or the amount of the debt. However, a party opposing a properly supported summary judgment motion cannot defeat it without presenting at least some affirmative evidence showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Steelvest, 807 S.W.2d at 481. Childers never actually denied signing the promissory note in any verified pleading, stating only that he neither admitted nor denied the existence of the debt. Furthermore, he gives no factual basis to question his signature on the note. In the absence of some affirmative evidence challenging the existence or the amount of the debt, we must conclude that Educap was entitled to summary judgment.
Accordingly, the January 31, 2014 summary judgment entered by the Harrison Circuit Court is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR. BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Robert Timothy Childers, pro se
Sadieville, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: William Scott Stinnett
Patrick James Kilburn
Louisville, Kentucky