Farmers Livestock Market, Inc. v. Deaton
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION: Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment (Doc. 10) is GRANTED. The Clerk will prepare a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of $146,142.09. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis H Inman on 8/16/2013. (RLC, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE
FARMERS LIVESTOCK MARKET, INC.
v.
RANDY DEATON
)
)
)
)
)
NO. 2:12-CV-383
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In its Sworn Complaint, plaintiff alleges that the defendant is indebted to it in the
amount of $153,682.23. As far as the complaint alleges, this indebtedness had two
components: first, plaintiff alleges that the defendants executed a promissory note to Don
McNeese in the amount of $74,000.00, upon which there is now owed $81,187.50; and
second, that defendant is indebted to plaintiff on open account in the amount of $72,494.73.
Added together, these two figures amount to $153,682.23.
In his answer, defendant admitted executing a promissory note to Don McNeese but
he denies that the note was executed and delivered on January 1, 2010. He apparently also
denies in his answer that the promissory note, whenever it was executed, was in the original
amount of $74,000.00.
As far as the amounts owing on open account are concerned, defendant stated in his
answer that he admits that he owes plaintiff “some amount for the purchase of cattle” but
denies that he owes the amounts claimed by plaintiff and accordingly “demands strict proof
thereof.”
The plaintiff has now filed a motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 10), supported by
the affidavits of Don McNeese, plaintiff’s President, and Linda McNeese, plaintiff’s
bookkeeper.
DON MCNEESE’S AFFIDAVIT
Mr. McNeese is President of Farmers Livestock Market, Inc. and has been for fortythree years.
On January 1, 2010, Mr. McNeese concluded that Mr. Deaton owed
approximately $74,000.00 to Farmers Livestock Market, Inc. Accordingly, Mr. McNeese
prevailed upon Mr. Deaton to sign a promissory note in that amount. The promissory note
erroneously named Mr. McNeese as a payee, when the payee should have been the
corporation, Farmers Livestock Market, Inc. As a result, Mr. McNeese assigned the note to
Farmers Livestock Market, Inc. No payment has ever been made on that note, and it has
never been “posted to the books and records of the corporation, and does not constitute an
obligation of Randy Deaton to the corporation.” Rather, the promissory note was merely Mr.
Deaton’s acknowledgment as of January 1, 2010, that he owed the corporation that amount
of money.
Mr. Deaton now owes the corporation a total of $146,142.09, all of which is on open
account, and which includes the amount originally embraced within the promissory note.
LINDA MCNEESE’S AFFIDAVIT
Ms. McNeese has been the bookkeeper for Farmers Livestock Market, Inc. since
2007. She maintains a ledger that records the purchases of cattle from the corporation by Mr.
Deaton, as well as all payments by him from January 5, 2008 to January 15, 2012. A copy
2
of that ledger is appended to Ms. McNeese’s affidavit.
As of January 13, 2012, Mr. Deaton’s purchases from the corporation “exceeded his
payments by $146,142.09,” which is due and owing, and which does not include any interest
or late charges.
Based on the foregoing affidavits, the plaintiff corporation asks for a judgment against
the defendant Randy Deaton in the amount of $146,142.09, asserting that there is no genuine
issue of any material fact concerning the amount owing to Farmers Livestock Market, Inc.
by Mr. Deaton.
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE
The defendant’s response is supported by his affidavit, which is brief. He says only
that (1) he did not sign the promissory note and, after he reviewed the ledgers and accounting
records of the plaintiff, payments [he] made to Plaintiff do not appear on its books.”
Summary judgment is appropriate where “the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure
materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and
that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” F.R.Civ.P. 56(c). The
nonmoving party is to be indulged with all possible favorable inferences from the facts.
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986).
RULING
The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating that no genuine issue of
material fact exists. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986). To refute such a
3
showing, the non-moving party must present some significant, probative evidence indicating
that a trial is necessary to resolve a material factual dispute. Id. at 322.
The opposing party may not simply rest on the mere allegations or denials in his
pleadings; rather, that party must affirmatively present competent evidence sufficient to
establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact that requires a trial.
Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986).
Defendant has failed to demonstrate that there is any factual dispute regarding the
amount he owes the plaintiff. He says only that payments he made to the plaintiff do not
appear on its books. At the very least, defendant is obligated to show that he made a
payment of x-dollars on y-date which does not appear on Ms. McNeese’s ledger.
Presumably the proof would be no better at trial should the court deny the plaintiff’s
motion for summary judgment. Hearing only Mr. Deaton’s testimony at trial that tracks
what he said in his affidavit, the court would have no choice but to grant plaintiff a judgment
on the basis of Ms. McNeese’s testimony. In other words, denying plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment only delays the inevitable.
Defendant does say in his affidavit that he did not sign the promissory note, and to that
extent there could have been a factual dispute. However, according to the affidavits of Don
and Linda McNeese, the note was only intended to represent what defendant owed the
corporation on January 1, 2010. It has never been posted to the books of the corporation, and
it is no longer sued upon. It is a non-issue, and therefore there is no issue as to any material
facts.
4
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 10) is GRANTED. The Clerk will
prepare a judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of
$146,142.09.
SO ORDERED:
s/ Dennis H. Inman
United States Magistrate Judge
5
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?