RENDERED: APRIL 28, 2023; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED 

# Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

NO. 2022

- CA

- 0487

- MR

ANGELA TUCKER APPELLANT

v. APPEAL FROM WOODFORD CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE JEREMY MICHAEL MATTOX, JUDGE

ACTION NO. 21

- CI

- 00027

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; LANES VIEW NEIGHBOORHOOD ASSOCIATION HOME OWNER ’ S ASSOCIATION; AND WELLS FARGO APPELLEES

OPINION AFFIRMING

**   **  **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; KAREM AND M C NEILL , JUDGES.

THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: Angela Tucker, pro se , appeals from an order
granting summary judgment in favor of the University of Kentucky Federal Credit

Union (hereinafter referred to as the Credit Union). We find no error and affirm.- 2

- FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 7, 2008, Ms. Tucker entered into a home equity loan with

the Credit Union for $35,000. Ms. Tucker gave the Credit Union a mortgage on

her house in order to secure the loan. On February 9, 2021, the Credit Union filed
the underlying action seeking to recover the amount owed on the mortgage. The

Credit Union claimed that Ms. Tucker had not b een making the requisite payments.
On May 20, 2021, the Credit Union filed a motion for summary judgment. The
evidence presented by the Credit Union showed that Ms. Tucker had not been
making full payments on the mortgage, only partial payments. The tri al court
granted summary judgment and this appeal followed.

ANALYSIS
The standard of review on appeal of a summary judgment is whether the trial court correctly found that there were no genuine issues as to any material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

. . . “The record must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment and all doubts are to be resolved in his favor.” Summary “judgment is only proper where the movant shows that the adverse party could not prevail under any circumstances.” Consequently, summary judgment must be granted “[o]nly when it appears impossible for the nonmoving party to produce evidence at trial warran ting a judgment in his favor[.] ”

Scifres v. Kraft
, 916 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Ky. App. 1996) (citations omitted).
“Because summary judgment involves only legal questions and the existence of- 3

-

any disputed material issues of fact, an appellate court ne ed not defer to the trial

court’ s decision and will review the issue de novo .” Lewis v. B & R Corporation
, 56 S.W.3d 432, 436 (Ky. App. 2001).

Appellant argues that because she was making some payments, the
Credit Union could not file the underlying lawsuit. She also argues that because

she was in forbe arance with her primary mortgagor, Wells Fargo, she did not have
to make payments to the Credit Union. Here, the evidence unequivocally shows

that
, while Ms. Tucker was making some payments to the Credit Union, she was
not making full or complete payments . Around the time that the Credit Union filed

this action, Ms. Tucker had over $6,000.00 in payment arrearages. Failure to make

full and timely payments violated the agreement between Ms. Tucker and the

Credit Unio n; therefore, the Credit Union properly brought this action

. Furthermore, a forbearance with Wells Fargo has no bearing on her agreement with

the Credit Union. Ms. Tucker was not in forbearance with the Credit Union.

CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, the trial court did not err in granting
summary judgment to the Credit Union. There were no genuine issues of material
fact that would have precluded summary judgment and the Credit Union was
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.- 4

- ALL CONCUR.

BRIEF S FOR APPELLANT:
Angela Tucker, pro se Versailles, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION :
Gregory D. Pavey Felisa S. Moore Lexington, Kentucky