U.S. Equities Corp. v. Tracy A. Standard et al. (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

In a three-count complaint, the plaintiff, U.S. Equities Corporation, alleges it is an assignee of an account originating from a Chase credit card debt.   The plaintiff seeks money damages in the amount of $2,499.99, pre-judgment statutory interest from the charge off date of November 30, 2008 at a rate of 24%, post-judgment interest of 10% per annum, and attorneys fees.

The defendants, Tracy A. Standard and John L. Standard are self-represented litigants and have denied each and every allegation contained in the complaint.   The defendants have asserted nine affirmative defenses.   In their objection to the motion for summary judgment the defendants claim the plaintiffs have failed to provide an original signed contract setting forth the terms of the agreement.   Furthermore the defendants contest the adequacy of the bill of sale claiming it does not set forth what rights have been transferred.

“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.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Provencher v. Enfield, 284 Conn. 772, 790–91, 936 A.2d 625 (2007).  “[T]he genuine issue aspect of summary judgment requires the parties to bring forward before trial evidentiary facts, or substantial evidence outside the pleadings, from which the material facts alleged in the pleadings can warrantably be inferred ․ A material fact has been defined adequately and simply as a fact which will make a difference in the result of the case.”   (Citation omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Buell Industries, Inc. v. Greater New York Mutual Ins. Co., 259 Conn. 527, 556, 791 A.2d 489 (2002).  “In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court's function is not to decide issues of material fact, but rather to determine whether any such issues exist.”  Nolan v. Borkowski, 206 Conn. 495, 500, 538 A.2d 1031 (1988).   Moreover, the “court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   Provencher v. Enfield, supra, 791.

“In seeking summary judgment, it is the movant who has the burden of showing the nonexistence of any issue of fact.   The courts are in entire agreement that the moving party for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue as to all the material facts, which, under applicable principles of substantive law, entitle him to a judgment as a matter of law.   The courts hold the movant to a strict standard.   To satisfy his burden the movant must make a showing that it is quite clear what the truth is, and that excludes any real doubt as to the existence of any genuine issue of material fact.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Ramirez v. Health Net of the Northeast, Inc., 285 Conn. 1, 10–11, 938 A.2d 576 (2008).

The principal issue raised by the defendants in this case is the sufficiency of the bill of sale.   Submitted by the plaintiff are two bills of sale.   The first, from Chase Bank USA, N.A. to Turtle Creek Assets, LTD dated June 14, 2010.   The second the bill of sale is from Turtle Creek Assets, LTD to the plaintiff and is dated June 15, 2010.   Each bill of sale, conveys, transfers and assigns all rights, title and interest to the buyer.   The court has also reviewed the affidavit of debt which sufficiently sets forth the facts supporting the claim.   After a careful review of the pleadings, affidavits and exhibits the court finds there is no genuine issue of material fact as to liability.   The court finds the plaintiff has provided sufficient proof of chain of title and accordingly, judgment may enter in favor of the plaintiff as to liability only.

Practice Book § 17–50 provides that where judgment is rendered on the issue of liability alone, the court shall order an immediate hearing before a judge to determine the amount of damages.

BY THE COURT

Denise D. Markle, Judge

Markle, Denise D., J.