Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Humphrey Lumber Corporation et al

Filing 16

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.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
HUMPHREY LUMBER CORPORATION )
and STEVEN J. HUMPHREY,
)
)
Defendants.
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:11cv584-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor-by-merger
to

Wachovia

Bank,

N.A.,

brings

this

lawsuit

against

defendants Humphrey Lumber Corporation and Steven J.
Humphrey

seeking

collection

on

a

note

and

Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

guaranty.
The case

is now before the court on Wells Fargo’s motion for
summary judgment, which, for the reasons that follow, will
be granted.
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

law.”

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
Cir. 1993).
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,
attorney’s fees.

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
Steven

J.

Humphrey

on

behalf

of

Humphrey

Lumber

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

2

$ 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
past due.

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.
15).

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
the debtor.
223,

225-26

See Sharer v. Bend Millwork Sys., 600 So. 2d
(Ala.

1992).

Wells

Fargo

has

offered

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

3

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