Case Title: Roberts v. SECURITY TRUST AND SAV. BANK

Citation: 470 So. 2d 674

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1985-04-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
470 So. 2d 674 (1985)
G.W. ROBERTS
v.
SECURITY TRUST AND SAVINGS BANK OF BRILLIANT, Alabama.
83-1311.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 19, 1985.
*675 John A. Posey III, Double Springs, for appellant.
Jackie O. Isom, Hamilton, for appellee.
MADDOX, Justice.
The sole issue presented on this appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of plaintiff/appellee Security Trust and Savings Bank of Brilliant, Alabama, in an action concerning an alleged default on a promissory note.
On October 14, 1982, Big R Trucking Co., Inc. executed and delivered a promissory note to plaintiff/appellee Security Trust and Savings, in the amount of $62,134.24. G.W. Roberts, defendant/appellant, signed the promissory note as vice president of the trucking company and as a guarantor.
According to the terms of the note, $51,856.84 was advanced to the trucking company, to be repaid in 24 monthly installments of $2,589.01 beginning November 14, 1982. A security interest in real property, personal property, and equipment was given by the trucking company, George (Billy) Roberts, and G.W. Roberts.
On November 14, 1982, Big R Trucking Co., Inc. defaulted on the promissory note. Thereafter, pursuant to the security agreement, Security Trust and Savings took possession of and sold the collateral and applied the proceeds, less costs and attorney's fees, to the balance of the note.
On August 1, 1983, Security Trust and Savings filed suit against Big R Trucking Co., Inc., George (Billy) Roberts, and G.W. Roberts for the unpaid balance on the note. On September 9, 1984, a default judgment was entered. The default judgment against G.W. Roberts was set aside for insufficient service of process.
Thereafter, G.W. Roberts filed a counterclaim seeking a partial refund of the finance charge and damages, contending that he was not given notice of the sale and that the collateral was not sold in a commercially reasonable manner. Upon the notice of Security Trust and Savings, summary judgment was entered against G.W. Roberts in the amount of $21,616.11. Roberts appeals here.
Although the record contains no formal order dismissing Roberts's counterclaim, nevertheless, we hold that the judgment is final and thus subject to our review, because the trial court entered a judgment in full for Security Trust and Savings. That holding implicitly denied the counterclaim; therefore, the judgment was final. See Poston v. Gaddis, 372 So. 2d 1099 (Ala.1979).
Roberts filed an affidavit in support of his counterclaim, which he claims created a genuine issue of material fact. That affidavit reads as follows:
This case is similar to Day v. Merchants National Bank of Mobile, 431 So. 2d 1254 (Ala.1983). In Day, the payee bank brought an action against the maker to recover for two defaulted promissory notes. The maker presented the following affidavit to counter the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment:
In Day this Court held as follows:
Here, Roberts's allegations that the collateral was sold in a commercially unreasonable manner and that there was insufficient notice of the sale are based on mere belief and, thus, are inadequate for purposes of Rule 56(c), Ala.R.Civ.P. Likewise, Roberts's allegations that he did not owe the money claimed by the bank or that he was not given credit for amounts already paid, are vague and general assertions which do not raise genuine issues of material fact. Sartino v. First Alabama Bank *677 of Birmingham, 435 So. 2d 39 (Ala.1983). Consequently, the judgment of the circuit court is due to be, and it is hereby, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and JONES, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.