Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Humphrey Lumber Corporation et al
OPINION. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 12/8/2011. (wcl, )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
HUMPHREY LUMBER CORPORATION )
and STEVEN J. HUMPHREY,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor-by-merger
defendants Humphrey Lumber Corporation and Steven J.
Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
is now before the court on Wells Fargo’s motion for
summary judgment, which, for the reasons that follow, will
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
The party seeking summary
judgment must first inform the court of the basis for the
motion, and the burden then shifts to the non-moving party
to demonstrate why summary judgment would not be proper.
See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986);
Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115–17 (11th
Under Alabama law, a promissory note serves as primafacie evidence of the holder’s right to recover the
principal, interest, and, if provided for in the note,
See Chilton Warehouse & Mfg. Co. v.
Lewis, 57 So. 100, 101 (Ala. App. 1911).
In this case,
Wells Fargo has submitted a promissory note signed by
Corporation and the undisputed facts set forth in Wells
Fargo’s affidavits and documentary evidence demonstrate
that Humphry Lumber Corporation defaulted on that note.
Because of the default, Wells Fargo accelerated payment
of the remaining principal sum of $ 413,088.30, along with
$ 49,947.64 in accrued interest and $ 4,413.59 in late
fees, for a total of $ 467,449.53, all of which is now
For its part, Humphrey Lumber Corporation
admits “some indebtedness to Wells Fargo,” but offers no
evidence challenging the amount owed or identifying a
single material issue of fact.
Defs.’ Brief 1 (Doc. No.
As a result, summary judgment is proper against
Humphrey Lumber Corporation.
Alabama law makes Steven J. Humphrey, the guarantor
of the promissory note, liable upon proof of (1) the
existence of the guaranty contract and (2) a default by
See Sharer v. Bend Millwork Sys., 600 So. 2d
documentary evidence and affidavits establishing both the
existence of such a contract between it and Steven J.
Humphrey and of Humphrey Lumber Corporation’s default on
the underlying note.
Because this is the only evidence
before the court, and because this evidence has not been
opposed by either defendant, summary judgment is proper
on Wells Fargo’s claim against Steven J. Humphrey.
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE, this the 8th day of December, 2011.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?