Opinion
2021-CA-0958-MR
01-20-2023
RONALD B. STONE; JANE STONE; RALPH A. JEKEL; AND SHERYL JEKEL APPELLANTS v. REPUBLIC BANK AND TRUST COMPANY APPELLEE
BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS: James W. Dunn Louisville, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Joseph N. Tucker Sarah S. Mattingly Louisville, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE AUDRA J. ECKERLE, JUDGE ACTION NO. 20-CI-007035
BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS: James W. Dunn Louisville, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Joseph N. Tucker Sarah S. Mattingly Louisville, Kentucky
BEFORE: DIXON, LAMBERT, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.
OPINION
McNEILL, JUDGE
Appellants, Ronald Stone and Ralph Jekel, operated a machinist shop in Jefferson County, Kentucky. They had a line of credit with the Appellee, Republic Bank and Trust Company (Republic). The line of credit was changed to a direct loan in 2019. Republic extended the credit in reliance on Appellants' Personal Financial Statements (PFS), wherein Appellants disclosed their assets, including their ownership interests in their respective primary residences. Appellants defaulted on the loan and Republic filed the underlying suit as a result. The present issue concerns the transfer, prior to their default, of Appellants' interests in their personal residences to their wives, Appellants Sheryl Jekel and Jane Stone for $1.00 and $10.00.
The specific law at issue here is the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA). See KRS 378A.040 et. seq. Republic claims that the transfers were void, fraudulent, and deprived Republic of obtaining the deficiency balance on the loan. The Jefferson Circuit Court entered summary judgment in favor of Republic. The court's order contained eight specific findings under the UVTA. The court also stated that "[w]hile [Appellants] have not admitted that they harbored any actual intent to defraud, the intent can clearly be inferred by their actions and the timing of those actions." Appellants appealed to this Court as a matter of right. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Kentucky Revised Statutes.
A motion for summary judgment should be granted "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. "Because no factual issues are involved and only a legal issue is before the court on the motion for summary judgment, we do not defer to the trial court and our review is de novo." Univ. of Louisville v. Sharp, 416 S.W.3d 313, 315 (Ky. App. 2013) (citation omitted).
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
Appellants raised four specific arguments on appeal: 1) They did not violate the UVTA; 2) they did not have the actual intent to hinder, delay, or to defraud the Appellees; 3) Appellee's motion is premature and should be overruled; and 4) Appellee's claim should be dismissed under the doctrine of res judicata. Having considered the record and the applicable law, Appellants have not presented any evidence or legal authority that would negate a judgment as a matter of law in this instance.
And although the parties were involved in previous litigation, Appellants have also not presented any convincing evidence or authority that would preclude the present claim under the doctrine of claim preclusion or issue preclusion. See Constr. Fabrication, LLC v. Republic Bank &Tr. Co., No. 2020-CA-1610-MR, 2021 WL 5022025, at *3 (Ky. App. Oct. 29, 2021) ("Upon examination of the four corners of the guaranty documents, it is apparent that Jekel and Stone guaranteed the February 14, 2019, loan from Republic to Construction Fabrication in their individual capacities."). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court.
LAMBERT, JUDGE, CONCURS.
DIXON, JUDGE, CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.