I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - CA - 0 1 2 7 1 - CO A B E U L A H A B R A MS AP P EL LA NT
v. REPUBLI C FI NAN CE, LLC APP ELLEE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 24/ 2013 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. L E E S OR RE L S CO L E M AN CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: LOW NDES COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: BENNI E L . J ONES J R. A TTO RN EY FO R A PPELL EE: TH O M A S L. SEG RE ST NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - CONTRACT TRI AL C OU RT D I SP OSI TI ON : SUM M AR Y J UD GM ENT G RA NTED TO APPELLEE D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D : 09/ 09/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E G R I F F I S, P . J. , M A X W E L L A N D F A I R , JJ. FAI R, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. R epubl i c F i nan ce sued B eul ah A br ams on a del i nquent pr om i s s ory not e. T he tr i al
c o u r tg r a n t e d s u mma ry j u d g me n ta g a i n s tAb r a ms , a n d s h e a p p e a l s . W e a f f i rm. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶2 . “W e e m p loy a d e n o v o stan d ard of rev iew of a tri al co u rt ’s gra n t or d en ial o f su m m ary j udgm entand exa m i ne al l the evi dent i ary m att er s bef or e i t. . . . ” D avis v. H

oss , 869 So. 2d 39 7, 401 ( ¶10 ) (M i ss. 200 4). S um m ary j ud gm ent i s proper w hen “the pleadi ng s, dep osi t i on s, ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es and adm i s s i ons on f i l e, t ogetherw i th the af f i davi t s , i f

any, s how ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o any mat er i al factan d t hatthe movi ng party i s ent i t l ed t o a

### 2

jud g m en t as a m att er o f l aw . ” M . R . C . P . 5 6 (c). ¶ 3 . “ T h e e v id e n c e is v ie w e d in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o ra b le to th e p a rt y o p p o s in g th e m o tio n .” D a v is , 869 So. 2d at401 ( ¶10) . “[ A ] n a dver s e party may notr es tupon the mer e al l egat i ons ordeni al s of

hi s pl eadi ngs , buthi s r es pons e . . . m us ts etf or th specif

i c fact s s how i ng that ther e i s a genui ne i s s ue f ortr i al . ” M . R . C . P. 56( e) . Fur therm or e: [W ]he n a p a rty , o p p o sin g su m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n a c laim o r d e fe n se a s to w hi ch thatparty w i l l bearthe bur den of proof attr i al , f ai l s t o m ake a s how i ng su ffic ien t to e sta b lish a n e ss e n tial e lem e n t o f th e c la im o r d e fe n se , the n a ll ot herf act s a r e i m m at er i al , a nd the m ovi ng pa r ty i s e nt i t l ed t o j udgm enta s a ma t t e ro f l a w. G al l ow ay v. Trav el ers I ns . C o. , 5 1 5 S o . 2 d 6 7 8 , 6 8 4 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 ).

DI S CU S S I ON ¶4. T hi s cas e has a s om ew hatunus ual pr ocedur al hi s t ory thati s ke y t o under s t andi ng the
s ubs t ant i ve def

ect s i n A br ams’ s def

ens e. ¶ 5 . R e p u b lic F in a n c e fil e d fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. In re sp o n se , A b ra m s file d a n a ffid a v it thats t at ed: [ A br ams] does notunde r s t and and ha s no i ndepende ntr ecol l ect i on of h a v i n g e n t e r e d i n t o o rs i g n e d th e n o t e a n d / o rs e c u r i ty a g r e e me n t– e x h i b i t“ A” att ache d t o the C om pl ai ntf i l ed by R epubl i c Fi nance on ora boutJ anuary 27, 2010, and w oul d s t at e af f i rm at i vel y thatthe Pl ai nt i ff h as nots how n thats he ow es the s um of

$6, 646. 83; and s he di s put es the al l egat i on thats he ow es $2, 215. 00 i n at t orney’s f ee[ s ] . She f

urtherdi s put es the al l egat i on thats he ow es the tot al sum of $8,861.83 and al l cost s. M or eover , s he di s put es and deni es thatan i nt er estrat e of 35. 75% per a n n u m s h o u l d a c c ru e f

r o m J a n u a ry 1 8 , 2 0 1 0 o ra n i n t e r e s tr a t e f r o m a n y t i me [ s i c] her ei n. ¶ 6 . A p p a re n tly a s a re su lt o f A b ra m s’s a ffid a v it, R e p u b lic F in a n c e re a lize d th a t th e n o te

### Ap parently so me of th e pro ceeds o f the seco ndloanwere u sed to satisfy th e first 1 

### promis sor

y note . 3 att ache d t o i t s compl ai nt– al though execut ed by A br ams i n f avorof R epubl i c Fi nance – w as f ora di f f ere ntl oan than the one i thad des cr i bed i n the compl ai ntand i nt ended t o r ecove r u p o n . W ith th e trial c o u rt’s p e rm iss io n , R e p u b lic F in a n c e filed a n a m e n d e d c o m p lain t w ith

1 the corr ectnot e att ache d. ¶7 . R epubl i c Fi na nc e the n f i l e d a s e c on d mot i on f

ors umm a ry j ud gmen t . T he m ot i on in c lu d e d a n a ffid a v it fro m T a m m y W o o te n , R e p u b lic F in a n c e ’s b ra n c h m a n a g e r in C ol um bus , M i s s i s s i ppi . W oot en s t at ed thatA br am s had execut ed the not e att ache d t o the amended compl ai ntand thats he w as i n def aul t . A l s o att ache d w as an af f i davi tf r om R epubl i c Fi nance ’ s att orney, w ho s t at ed thatthe not e pr ovi ded f oratt orney’ s f

ees and that
one- thi r d of

the amountow ed underthe not e w as a r eas onabl e f ee. ¶8. In r espon se, A bram s subm i t t ed the exac ts am e af fi dav i ts he had off

ered i n respon se t o the f i r s tm ot i on f

ors um m ary j udgm ent– denyi ng the not e at t ached t o the or i gi nal compl ai nt . A ti s s ue atthi s poi ntw as the s econd pr om i s s ory not e, the one a t t ached t o the amended compl ai nt . Thus A br ams’ s s t at ementthats he di d notr emem bers i gni ng a di f f er ent not e ca nnotcr eat e a ge nui ne i s s ue of m at er i al f

act . T he r es tof

the af f i davitcons i s t s of concl us ory as s ert i ons ordeni al s . A br ams al s o s ubm i t t ed a co py of he rans w ert o the amended c om pl ai nta nd herr es pons e t o i nt err ogat or i es i n r es pons e t o the s econd mot i on f or s um m ary j udgm ent , butthos e al s o do notcont ai n r el evant , s w orn s t at ement s of f acton personal kn ow l edg e; both consi stal m ostenti rel y o f concl usory assert i on s of l egal theo ri es.

### 4

¶9. W e f

i nd that A br ams di d not pr oduce evi dence s uf f i ci ent t o cr eat e a genui ne i s s ue of
m a ter ial fa c t. ¶ 1 0 . F o r th e first tim e o n a p p e a l, A b ra m s a ttac k s th e a ff id a v its s u b m itt e d b y R e p u b lic Fi nance i n i t s m ot i on f ors um m ary j udgm ent . She cont ends thatW oot en’ s af f i davi tw as in su ffic ien t b e c a u se it w a s n o t b a se d o n p e rso n a l k n o w led g e . S h e fu rth e r c h a lle n g e s b o th W oot en’ s af

f i davi tand the att orney’ s af f i davi tas def

ect i ve bec aus e they f

ai l ed t o i ncl ude
cert i f i ed ors w orn copi es of

the pr om i s s ory not e r ef er ence d w i thi n. ¶11. A br ams di d notm ake thes e obj ect i ons bef or e the tr i al court , and they cannotbe m ade fo r th e first tim e o n a p p e a l. “[I]f a p a rty a g a in st w h o m a m o tio n fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t is
m ade w i shes t o att ack o ne o r m ore of the aff i dav i t s up on w hich t he m oti on is based, he m ust f i l e i n the tr i al courta mot i on t o s tr i ke the af f i davi t , orthe obj ect i on i s w ai ved. ” Kar pi ns ky
v. A m er i can N

at ’ lI ns . C o. , 109 So . 3 d 84 , 90 (¶ 20) ( M i s s . 2013) ( ci t at i on and i nt ernal q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). ¶1 2 . W e d o re c o g n ize th a t w a iv e r o f th e e v id e n tiary o b jection is n o t n e c e ss a rily d is p o s itiv e . Se e id
. at90- 92 ( ¶¶20- 24) . E ven w hen evi dent i ary i s s ues ar e w ai ved, “upon de
novo r evi ew , [ court s ] m us ts t i l l de t erm i ne w hethera pa r ty ha s carr i ed i t s s um m ary- j udgm ent bur den bas ed upon the evi dence pr es ent ed . . . . ” I d. at 90 -91 (¶2 0 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). ¶1 3. A br ams i s corr ectt hatM i s s i s s i ppi Rul e o f Ci vi l Pr oc e du r e 5 6( c) r equi r es t hat af f i davi t s be made on per s onal know l edge. B utW oot en’ s af f i davi tst at es : “I am the B r anch M anage rof

R epubl i c Fi nance , L L C , C ol um bus , M i s s i s s i ppi , . . . and i n s uch capaci ty, I have
o v e rsig h t o f th e a c c o u n ts o f R e p u b lic F in a n c e , L L C , an d I a m c o m p e ten t to m a k e th is

### 5

a ffid a v it. ” A lth o u g h itd o e s n o t i n c lu d e the m a g ic w o rd s “ p e rso n a l k n o w led g e ,” th e a ffid a v it
su ffic ien tly se ts o u t a f a c tu a l b a sis fo r p e rso n a l k n o w led g e su c h th a t, w ith o u t a tim e ly obj ect i on, the i s s ue w as s ett l ed by the w ai ver . I f i tw er e “c l ear ” W oot en di d nothave p e rs o n a l k n o w le d g e , a d if fe re n t re s u lt w o u ld o b ta in ; b u t th a t is n o t th e c a s e . See Karpi ns ky , 1 0 9 S o . 3 d at 91 (¶2 2 ). ¶1 4 . T h e p rom issory no te w as fi led in the rec o rd as an att ac h m en t to R ep u b li c F inan ce ’s
a m e n d e d c o m p lain t. Itw a s s u ffic ien tly a u th e n tica ted a n d “ sw o rn ” b y W o o ten ’s a ffid a v it,
w hi ch i ncorpor at ed the not e by r ef er ence . ¶15. E ven as s um i ng the af f i davi t s w er e t echni cal l y def i ci ent because R epu bli c F i nance f ai l ed att ach a n extr a copy of the pr om i s s ory not e t o eac h of the af f i davi t s , i tw oul d notbe
a s ubs t ant i ve def

ectas i n Kar

pi ns ky . See i d. at91 n. 27. ¶ 1 6 . W e c o n c lu d e th a t t h e tr ia l c o u rt p ro p e rly g ra n ted su m m a ry ju d g m e n t to R e p u b lic Fi nance . ¶17. T H E JU D G M E N T O F T H E C IR C U IT C O U R T O F L O W N D E S C O U N T Y IS AF F I RMED . AL L CO S T S OF T HI S AP P E AL AR E AS S E S S E D T O T HE APP ELLANT. LE E, C . J. , I R V I N G A N D G R I FFIS, P. JJ . , BA R N ES, I SH EE , R O BE R TS, CAR LTON A ND M AXW ELL, J J . , CONCUR. J AM ES , J . , CONCURS I N P ART W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.