III v. Louis Callahan et al. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Household Finance Corporation III (Household) brought this action for a money judgment against Louise and Peter Callahan alleging monies due and owing from the defendants under a Personal Credit Line Account Agreement, a copy of which was attached as Exhibit A to the complaint.   The Callahans answered the complaint admitting they entered into the Agreement and that Exhibit A was a signed copy thereof.   The Callahans denied sufficient knowledge to plead to the other allegations except they specifically denied owing $17,647.25 as of August 18, 2009.

Household has moved for summary judgment and supporting that motion is an affidavit of Jemma George-Tucker, a Household employee, stating she has knowledge of Household's books and records pertaining to the Callahans.   The affidavit states that as of December 2, 2009 the Callahans owed $17,647.25 on August 18, 2009 and interest had accrued at 19.8% to December 2 for a total amount of $18,661.99 and finance changes accruing thereafter at $9.57 per day.

The Callahans have not filed any papers, affidavits or objections to this motion.

Practice Book § 17-49 provides that summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  “In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the trial court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”  Appleton v. Board of Education, 254 Conn. 205, 209 (2000).   Summary judgment “is appropriate only if a fair and reasonable person could conclude only one way.”  Miller v. United Technologies Corp., 233 Conn. 732, 751 (1985).  “The party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue [of] material facts which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to judgment as a matter of law.”  Appleton v. Board of Education, supra, 254 Conn. 209.  “A material fact has been defined adequately and simply as a fact which will make a difference in the result of the case.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   United Oil Co. v. Urban Development Commission, 158 Conn. 364, 379 (1969).   The trial court, in the context of summary judgment motion, may not decide issues of material fact, but only determine whether such genuine issues exist.  Nolan v. Borkowski, 206 Conn. 495, 500 (1983).

“Although the party seeking summary judgment has the burden of showing the nonexistence of any material fact [question] ․ a party opposing summary judgment must substantiate its adverse claim by showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact together with the evidence disclosing the existence of such an issue.   It is not enough, however, for the opposing party merely to assert the existence of such a disputed issue.”  Maffucci v. Royal Park Ltd. Partnership, 243 Conn. 552, 554 (1998).  “[T]he party opposing such a motion must provide an evidentiary foundation to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.”  Appleton v. Board of Education, supra, 254 Conn. 209.

The Callahans have provided no evidentiary foundation to support the denial of liability in their answer, or to contest the affidavit in support of the motion.   To successfully oppose a summary judgment motion the opposition must substantiate its adverse claim or provide evidence that shows a genuine dispute over a material fact.   The Callahans have done neither.   The court finds that there is no material fact at issue in this case and summary judgment is appropriate.

The court orders judgment to be entered against both defendants jointly and severally in the following amount:

Due December 2, 2009 $18,661.99

Interest to April 12, 2010 $ 1,253.67

Total:  $19,916.66

The defendants are ordered to pay $35.00 weekly to Household's attorneys beginning May 1, 2010.   The plaintiff is entitled to interest on the judgment in the annual amount of six percent.

TAGGART D. ADAMS

SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE

Adams, Taggart D., J.