### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE Ma y 14, 200 4 S es sio n
VANDERBIL T MORTG AGE & FINANCE, I NC. v.

JO SEPH ROT ELL O, ET AL 

### . Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Sevier County No. 2003-0111-III Re x Henry Ogle, Judge

No. E2003-01963-COA- R3-CV - F ILED JULY 28, 2004

J oseph and N ina Rotello (“De fenda nts”) p u rc hased a mobile home from Clayton Sevierville and fi na nc e d the pu rc ha se thr ou g h Va nd e rb ilt Mo rt g a g e & F inanc e , I nc . ( “ Pla int if f” ). Af te r D e fe nd a nts defaulted on the installment contrac t, Plainti ff f iled suit and then filed a proper ly supported motion for summary

judgme nt se eking possession of the mobile home

. Def endants, who wer e proc eeding pro s e , filed a r esponse to the motion for summary judgme nt, but failed to off er a ny competent pr oof to establish a g enuine issue of materia l fac t for trial. The Trial Court gr anted Plaintiff’s motion for

su mma ry jud g me nt, a nd

we a ff ir m.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Circuit Court

Aff irm ed; Case R em anded

D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R ., J ., and W I L L I AM H. INMAN , S R

. J ., joined.

Geor g e T. Unde rwood, Jr., Knox ville, Tennesse e, for the Appellants Joseph and Nina Rotello.
Anthony R. St eele , Knoxvi lle, Tenne ssee, f or the Appe llee Va nderbilt Mortg ag e & Financ e, I nc.

OP IN ION

Bac kgr ound

On Ap ri l 23 , 2 00 1, Defen dan ts ent ered in to a R eta il I ns tal lm ent Co nt ractand S e c ur ity Ag ree ment (the “ Ag ree ment”) to fina nce the ir purcha se of a Clay ton Drea m Mo bile Home and

va ri ou s a c c e sso ri e s in c lud ing a rang e , r e frig e rator , dis hw a sh e r, a ndmic ro wa ve . T he mob ile ho me and ac cessories wer e sold to Defe ndants by Clay ton Sevierville. Def endants fina nced $45,954.42 throug h Plaintiff.-2- Plaintiff filed a law suit in t he Sevier CountyGene ral Sessions Court seeking possession of the mobile home and a cce ssories af ter De fenda nts alleg edly defau l t ed o n the Ag ree ment. Def

endants wer e serve d with pr ocess and a default judg ment was en t er ed aw arding Pla int if f p os se ssi on of

the mob ile ho me a nda c c e sso ri e s, a s w e ll a s c ou rt c os ts. De fe nd a nts tim e ly

app e a le d th e jud g me nt o f the Ge ne ra l Se ssi on s Co urt to the Se vie r C ou nty Cir c uit Cou rt

.
On April 21, 2003, Plaintiff f iled a motion for summary judgme nt and attac hed the aff idavit of Esther Per ez (“Perez ”), Pl aintiff’s c ustodian of re cords a nd leg al re prese ntative. Acc ording to Perez, Defe ndants d efaulted on the Ag ree ment in Aug ust of 2002 when they cea sed making pay ments. Perez stated that De fenda nts were provi d ed notice of the ir defa ult and the outstanding ba lance on the Agre ement was $50,953.88. I n addition, Perez stated that the Ag ree ment provided for

rea son ab l e attorne y

fee s not to ex cee d 15% of the unpaid debt. Plaintiff also filed a statement of un d i s p u t ed material fac ts. The undisputed fac ts set forth by Plaintiff were : 1) Def endants enter ed into the Ag ree ment; 2) Def endants we re in de fault of the A g ree ment by rea son of non-pay ment; 3) notice of de fault wa s provided to D efe ndants; 4) the outstanding balanc e on the Ag ree ment was $50,953.88; 5) the A g ree ment provided for rea sonable attorney fee s not to ex cee d 15% of the unpaid debt plus a ll c osts of collection incurre d as a result of non-pay ment; and 6) the

security interest g rante d in the Ag ree ment had bee n perf ecte d by the notation of Plaintiff’s lien on the Ce rt if ic a te of Ti tle

. Al l of the se c la ime d und isp ute d fa c ts w e re su pp orte d b y the Pe re z Af

fi da vit

.
D e f e n d a n ts w ere pro s e throug hout the entire tria l court proc eeding s. On May 29, 2003, Def

endants filed a

document titled “S u m m ar yand To the Court” (her einaf ter “ Summary ”) which wa s prepa

red by defe ndant J oseph Rotello. I n the Summary , Def endants set f

orth what they

c la im t o b e fa lse a ndmis le a din g state me nts ma de to the m by re pr e se ntativ e s o f C la y ton Se vie rv ill e (“Clayton”) re g arding the s ale and condition of t he mobi le hom e. According to Defe ndants, Clay ton made de liberate ly

false and misleading statements re g arding “wa rra nty , ag e of the home, true

c on dit ion of

the ho me , r od e nt i nf

e statio n, da ma g e to ap pli a nc e s, we a the r d a ma g e to b oththe ho me
a ndthe he a tin g a ndA/ C sy ste m, s un da ma g e , [a nd ] imp ro pe r c on str uc tio n. ” Defe nd a nts a lso detailed numer ous problems they claimed to have had since purcha sing the mobile home and soug ht

a dd iti on a l ti me to co nd uc t furthe r inv e sti g a tio ns int o the c on dit ion of the mob ile ho me . D e fe nd a nts stated:
[W ]e feel that these and other circ umst ance s warr ant that this court not ru s h into any

hasty decision, and in fa ct, allow me a nd other parties to further c onduct both investigations, and to pr ocee d to have the home in question compl et el yor partially disassembled by

c omp e te nt i nd e pe nd e nt i nv e sti g a tors e xpe ri e nc e d in the se ma tte rs

. These inve stigations will be both independe nt, and will be conduc ted

un de r the a us pic e s o f H UD a ndI a m adv ise d, oth e r F e de ra l A g e nc ie s.

Def endants c laimed to have inc urre d damag es as a resu l t o f C l ay ton’s false and misleading statements and reque sted that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgme nt be denied. The Summary was sig ned by

J oseph Rotello, but was not notarized or otherw ise sworn to.-3- On Ma y 29 , 2 00 3, a

he ari ng wa s h e ld on Pla int if f’ s mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt. At thi s h e ari ng , th e Tria l Co urt g rante d D e fe nd a nts a n ad di ti on al two w e e ks to f ile a re sp on se to Pla int if f’ s mo tio n f

or su mma ry jud g me nt and state me nt o f u nd isp ute d mate ri a l f a c ts. De fe nd a nts
we re g ive n u p to a ndinc lud ing June 12 , 2 00 3, in wh ic h to fi le the ir re sp on se . D e fe nd a nts fi le d th e ir response on J une 12 at 4:10 p.m. The response contained twenty -two numbere d p arag raphs th wher ein Def

endants reiter ated the various alleg edly false and misleading statements made to them by Clay ton r epre sentatives. Def endants also alleg ed that Plaintiff and Clay ton should be conside red one and the same be cause they wer e owned, operated, manag ed and controlled by the same boa rds of direc tors. Def

endants a g ain detailed the various problems and defe cts they encounte red w ith the mobile home afte r p u rc h as i ng it. Defe ndants demande d court c osts and compensatory damag es resulting from the false and misleading statements. Whil e Def endants did not specify

the amount of c o mp e n s a to r y d a ma g e s th e y w e r e s e e k in g , th e y d id r e q u e s t p u n it iv e d a ma g e s in the amount of $150,000. Def

endants e nded their r esponse by claiming there wer e “multi ple substantial, g enuine and incr easing ly

g enuine issues for

a full trial of this matter” and aske d the Trial C o urt to deny Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgme nt.

Def endants attached to their response an I nspection Report purportedly prepa red by the Te nn e sse e De pa

rt me nt o f C omm e rc e a ndI ns ur a nc e a ft e r that agenc y ins pe c te d D e fe nd a nts ’

mo b il e h o me o n A u g u s t 2 2 , 2 0 0 2

. T h e r e p o r t c o v e r s f o r ty

- tw o s p e c if

ic c o mp laints made by Def endants. Many , though not a ll, of these complaints in v olved cosmetic pr oblems. The investigator’s summary stated t hat t he manufacture r of the mobile home should investigate and/or

corr ect twe nty

of the forty -two items inspected, and the deale r should investigate and/or c orre ct five of the items. The r emaining items either alr eady wer e cor rec ted or we re matters that neede d to be resolved by

the parties.

On June 26 , 2 00 3, the Tria l Court gr a nte d Plai nti ff ’s mot ion fo r s umm ary jud g me nt. Acc ording to the Trial Court, it had g iven D ef en d ants until J une 12 to file a re sponse and ha d th cautioned the m that if no response w as forthcoming, the motion fo r summary judgme nt would be g rante d. The Trial Court then stated:

WHEREAS, purs u an tt o t h e r ec o rd s o f t h e C i rc u i tC o u rtC lerk for Sevier County , Tenne ssee, De fe n dants have failed to a nswer or otherwise r espond within the extended d ea d l i n e as or dere d by the Court. Thus, there be ing no re s p o n s e to t he Motion nor re buttal by De fe nd a nt[s] of

Pla int if f’ s State me nt o f M a te ri a l F a c ts p ur su a nt t o Rul e 56 .0 3, it i s
ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Vande rbilt’s motion is well taken and that summary judgme nt shall enter in favor of Va nderbilt....-4-

The Trial Court then awa

rded posse ssion of the mobile home and acce ssories t o Plaintiff. The Trial Court specifica lly

noted that its Judgment was not a bar to Plaintiff’ s seeking a def iciency judgme nt in the future.

O n J u l y

1 6 , 2 0 0 3 , D e f

e n d a n t s f i l e d a M o t i o n t o S e t A s i d e S u m m ar y J u d g m e n t

. In this mot ion, Defe ndants claimed the y did in fact file their re sponse to the summary judgme nt motion within the deadline se t by

the Trial Court. Specifica lly , Def endants c laimed they

“complied with the Courts (sic) orde r and did in d ee d proper ly complete a nd file with the Court said Responsive Pleading s ....” Afte r a he aring on this mot ion, the Trial Court enter ed an order on Aug ust 4, 2003, wh ic h s ta te d:
Upon consid ering the ple ading s, arg uments, applicable Tenne ssee

Rules of Ci v i l Procedure , and applica ble law, the Court de termined that Def endants’ Motion shall be a nd is D ENIED and that the Final Sum mary J ud gme nt e nte re d b y

the Cou rt

on June 26 , 2 00 3, is aff irmed.

De fe nd a nts app e a l r a isi ng tw o is su e s. Th e fi rs t is su e is w hethe r the Tria l Co urt e rr e d in g ranti ng Pla int if

f’ s mo tio n f

or su mm ary ju dgment ba se d o n D e fe nd a nts ’ f a ilu re to f

ile a tim e ly

re sp on se wh e n in fa c t su c h a re sp on se ha d be e n f

ile d. Th e se c on d is su e pe rt a ins to a se pa rate la ws uit filed by Def endants on Nove mber 5, 2003, in the United States District Court for the Ea stern District of Tenne ssee. In this feder al court lawsuit, Defe ndants sued Clayton, Pl ai n t i ff , and other entities alleg ing, int e r a lia , fraud, brea ch of contra ct, breach of war ranty , and viol ations of the Mag nusonMoss W arr anty

Act, 15 U.S.C. §2301 et. seq

. I n their second issue on this appeal, De fenda nts assert that Plaintiff’s claim see king posse ssion of the mobi l e home should be transfer red to the f

eder al court because the l itigation in that court invol ves m any of t he same issues and the same parties, a nd the fe de ra l c ou rt

c a n a dd re ss a ll of the va

ri ou s iss ue s a t on c e , w he re a s th e state c ou rt la ws uit on ly

conce rns possession of the mobile home a nd acc essories.

Discussion

I n Bl air v . W e st To wn M

all , our Supreme Court r ece ntly re i t er at ed the standards

app lic able wh e n app e llate c ou rt s are re vie wi ng a mot ion fo r su mma ry jud g me nt. Bl air

v . W e st To wn Ma ll , 130 S.W .3d 761 (Tenn. 2004) . I n Bl air , th e Cou rt state d:

The standa

rds g overning an appe llate court’s revie w of a motio n f o r s u mm ar y

ju d g me n t a

r e w e ll s e tt le d

. Si n c e o u r in q u ir y inv olv e s pu re ly a qu e sti on of la w, no pr e su mpt ion of c or re c tne ss
a tta c he s to the low e r c ou rt ’s jud g me nt, a ndou r t a sk is c on fi ne d to revie wing the re cord to de termi n e whe ther the r equire ments of Tenne ssee Rule of Civil Procedur e 56 have be en met. See Staples v

. CB L & A s s o c

. , Inc. , 15 S. W.3 d 8 3, 88 (T e nn . 2 00 0) ; Hunter v. Br own , 9 55 S .W .2 d 4 9, 50 -5 1 ( Te nn . 1 99 7) ; Cowden v. Sovran-5- Ba nk /Ce ntr al S ou th , 816 S.W .2d 741, 744 (Tenn. 1991) . Tenne ssee R u l e o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 5 6

. 0 4 p r o v i d e s t h a t s u m m ar y j u d g m e n t is appropriate whe re: 1 ) t h ere is no ge nuine issue with reg ard to the materia l fa ct s rele vant to the claim or de fense contained in the motion, and 2) the moving party is e ntitled to a judgme nt a s a matter of law on the undisputed fac ts. Staples , 15 S.W .3d at 88.

* * *

Whe n th e pa

rt y se e kin g su mma

ry jud g me nt m ake s a

pr op e rl y
su pp orte d mo tio n, the bu rd e n s hif ts t o th e no nmo vin g pa

rt y to set forth specific fa cts establishing the exist ence of disputed, materia l f

acts which must be resolved by the trier of fac t.

To pr op e rl y su pp ort it s mo tio n, the mov ing pa rt y mus t either a ffirma t ively

neg ate a n essential ele ment of the non-moving part y ’s claim or c onclusively establish an aff irmative d efe nse. I f the moving party fails to neg ate a
c l a i m e d b a s i s f

o r t h e s u i t , t h e n o n

- m o v i n g p ar t y ’ s b u r d e n to produce evidenc e esta

blishing th ee xis tence of a g enuine issue for tria l is not trig g ere d and the motion for summary judgme nt must fail. I f the moving party succe ssfully neg ates a cla imed ba sis fo r the a c tio n, the no n- mov ing pa rt y ma y no t si mpl y

re st upon the pl eadings, but must offer proof to esta

blish the exis tence of the e ssential elements of the claim.

Bl air , 1 3 0 S

. W

. 3 d at 7 6 3 -6 4 , 7 6 7 (q u o t i n g Staples , 15 S.W .3d at 88-89).

Our Supreme Court also has provided instruction reg arding assessing the evidenc e wh en d ea l i n g wi th a m o t i o n fo r s u m m ar y j u d gm en t , s t at i n g:

The st a n d ar d s g o v e r n in g th e a s s e s s me n t o f e v id e n c e in the

su mma ry jud g me nt c on te xt ar e als o w e ll e sta bli sh e d. Cou rt s mu st vie w the e vid e nc e in the lig ht mos t fa vo ra ble to the no nmo vin g pa

rt y and must a lso dr aw all rea sonable infere nces in t h e nonmovi ng p ar t y ’s fa vor. See R obinson v. Ome r , 9 52 S.W. 2da t 42 6; B y r d v. Hall , 8 4 7 S. W. 2 d a t 2 1 0

- 1 1

. Co u r ts s h o u ldg r a n t a s u mma ry judgme nt only

when both the f

acts a nd the i n fe re n ces to be draw n from the fa ct s permit a re asonable person to re ach only one conclusion. See Mc C all v. W ilder , 913 S.W .2d 150, 153 (Tenn. 19 95 ); Carvell v. Bottoms , 900 S.W .2d 23, 26 (Tenn. 1995)

.-6-

Staples v. CBL & Assocs., Inc

. , 15 S.W .3d 83, 89 (Tenn. 2000)

.

This Court rece ntly

addre ssed a somewhat sim ilar set of procedura l fac ts in Pate v. Sta te , No. E 2 0 0 3

- 0 0 2 9 7

- CO A

- R3 -CV, 2003 Tenn. A pp. LEXI S 812 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2003), no appl. perm. appeal filed . I n Pa te , the plaintiff filed suit ag ainst the State of Te nnessee afte r she slipped and fe ll while on her way to class at Pellissippi S tate Te chnica l Communi ty College . The State filed a motion for summa ry j u d g ment asserting the pla intiff was judicially estopped fr om pursuing her c laim. The Cl aims Commi ssion dism issed the claim solely beca use the plaintiff f

ailed to f ile a timely

response to the motion for summary judgme nt. Pa te , 2003 Tenn. App. L EXI S 812, at * * 1 , 5

. W e r ev er s ed t h e j u d gm en to f t h e C l ai m s C o m m i s s i o n s t at i n g:

Pursuant t o Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56, t he non-moving party ’s burden to pr o d u ce e vidence establishing the exis tence of a g enuine issue for trial is not trig g ere d unless and unti l the moving pa rty either aff irmatively

neg ates a n essential element of the non-moving party ’s claim or c onclusively

establishes an a ffirmative defe nse. Staples , 15 S.W. 3da t 88 . In o the r w or ds , u nt il the m ov ing pa rt y a ff ir ma tiv e ly neg a te s a n e s s e n ti a l e le me n t o f th e n o n

- mo v in g p ar ty ’ s c la im or

c on c lus ive ly

e sta b l i s h e s ana f

f i rm at ive de fe ns e , th e no n- mov ing pa rt y has no duty

to respond. It nece ssarily follows that a motion for summary judgme nt should not be gr anted s o l elybecause the nonmoving pa

rty failed to respond. This is so beca use there first must be a dete rmination that the mo v i n g party met her bur den either

by aff irmatively

neg ating an esse ntial element of the non- moving pa rty ’s claim or c onclusively

establishing an aff

irmative def

ense befor e the motion can be g rante d. I f the moving party has met her

burden, a nd

a s s u m i n g n o t i m e l y r e s p o n s e h a s b e e n f i l e d b y t h e n o n

- m o v i n g p ar t y, then the prope r manne r for the C ommissi on to dispose of the motion for summary

judgme nt would be to g rant the motion because the nonmoving party failed to respond and it is ot herw ise appropriate under Rule 56 to gr ant the motion.

Pa te , 2003 Tenn. App. L

EXI S 812, at ** 15-16.

I n th e pr e se nt c a se , th e Tria l Co urt st a ted th at a ft e r c on sid e ri ng the ple a din g s,
arg ume nts of

c ou ns e l, andthe Rul e s of C ivi l Pr oc e du re , it wo uldg rant D e fe nd a nts a dd iti on a l ti me in which to file “spe cific r espons es ” t o P l aintiff’s motion for summary judgme nt. Be lieving no timely response had bee n filed, the Trial Court then g rante d the motion for summary judgme nt stating it wa s “we ll taken.” It is im plicit in the Trial Court’s j u d gment that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgme nt, the Perez aff

idavit, and the statement of undisputed fac ts considere d toge ther

wer e suff icient under Bl air

and Staples to trigg er a

burden on D ef

endants to produc e evide nce establishing the exis tence of a g enuine issue of materia l fac t for trial. Se e Bl air , 130 S.W .3d at 767, Staples , 1 5 S. W.3 d at 88 -8 9. Th e Pe re z affi dav it es ta bli sh e d th e e xiste nc e of De fe nd a nts ’T he r ecor d i s un cl ear wh y D ef endan t s ’ r es po ns e was not i n t he cour t cl er k’ s f i l e, wh i ch un fort un at el y r es ul t ed 1
i n t he T r i al Co ur t mi s t ake nl y bel i evi ng no r es po ns e h ad been f i l ed by t he Jun e 12 deadl i ne. th

-7- c on tr a c tua l A g re e me nt w ith Pla int if f, a br e a c h o f that A g re eme nt, no tic e to D e fe nd a nts of the ir br e a c h, a ndthe a mou nt of the ou tst a nd ing ind e bte dn e ss. We a g re e wi th the Tria l Co urt’ s impli c it

c on c lus ion that Pla int if

f’ s mo tio n f

or su mma ry wa s p ro pe rl y

su pp orte d a ndthe re by

tr ig g e re d a

du ty on the part of Def

endants to produc e co m p et en t evidence establishing the exis tence of a g enuine issue of material fac t.

Although the Trial Court cor rec tly determined that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgme nt was prope rly

supported, the Trial Court was acting under the misapprehe nsion that Def endants ha d not filed a re sponse when the motion for summary judgme nt initiallywas g rante d. 1 Un fo rtun a te ly , th is C ou rt ha s n ot b e e n p ro vid e d w ith a tr a ns c ri pt o f the he ari ng on De fe nd a nts ’ Motion to S et Aside Summary J udg ment, and so we do not know exactly what took place. I n the order aff irming its pre vious g rant of summary judgme nt, the Trial Court stated it was doing so after considering the pl eading s, arg uments, and applicable law. I n order for the T rial Court to conclude that its pr e vio us g rant of su mma ry jud g me nt wa s pr op e r, it m us t ha ve de te rm ine d th a t D e fe nd a nts ’ previously

unconsidere d response to the summary judgme nt motion was, nevertheless, insufficie nt to cre ate a g enuine issue of material f act. Af ter our ow n revie w of the r ecor d to determine w hether the Rule 56 requir ements we re me t, we ag ree with this conclusion.

I n their re sponse to the motion for summary judgme nt, Defe ndants failed to pr ovide any sworn aff

idavits or other form of competent proof as require d by Tenn. R. Civ. P. 56.06, which pr ov ide s in re le va nt p art

a s f oll ow s:

Rule 56.06. F ormof Af f i d a v its – F urther Test im ony – De f en se Re qui red. – Su p p o r ti n g a n d o p p o s in g a f f id a v it s s h a ll be made on pe rsonal knowledg e, shall set forth s u ch fac ts as would be admissible in evidence , and shall show aff irmatively that the af

fiant is competent to testify

to the matters stated there in. Sworn or

c e rt if ie d c op ie s of al l pap e rs or pa rt s th e re of re fe rr e d to in an a ff

ida vit sh a ll b e a tta c he d th e re to o r s e rv e d th e re wi th. Th e c ou rt ma y pe rm it

a ff ida vit s to be su pp le me nte d or opp os e d by de po sit ion s, a ns we rs to interrog atories, or

furthe r af

fi davits. When a motion for summary jud g me nt is mad e a nd su pp orte d as pr ov ide d in this ru le , an a dv e rs e pa rt y ma y no t r e st u po n th e me re a lle g a tio ns or de nia ls o f the a dv e rs e pa rt y ' s p le a din g , b ut h is o r he r re sp on se , by a ff ida vit s o r a s o the rw ise provided in this rule , must set forth specific fac ts showing that ther e is a g enuine issue for t rial. I f the a dverse party does not so respond, summaryjudgme nt, if appropriate, shall be e ntere d ag ainst the adver se party

....W e h ol d onl y t hat D ef endan t s f ai l ed t o of

fer comp et ent proof

t hat P l ai nt i f

f an d C l ay t on ar e one of t he s ame. 2
O f co u rs e , t h is d o e s n o t m e a n tha t suc h p ro o f ac tua lly d o e s o r d o e s n o t ex ist.
-8- W e a ck n o wl ed ge t h at De fe n d an t s we re p ro ce ed i n g pro s e be fo re the Tria l Co urt. Whil e pro s e litigants ar e unquestionably entitled to fair a nd equal tre atment as they pursue litigation, they are not excused from comply ing w ith applicable proce dural and substantive require ments. See e.g., W hitaker v. W

hirlpool C orp. , 32 S.W. 3d 22 2, 22 7 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 0) . G ivi ng De fe nd a nts the bene fit of eve ry rea sonable doubt, it is nonetheless clea r that in their re sponse they never denied wi th c omp e te nt p ro of

or oth e rw ise : 1) the e xiste nc e of the Ag re e me nt; 2) that th e y we re in d e fa

ult of that A g re e me nt; or

3) that the y ha d be e n pr ov ide d no tic e of the de fa ult , e tc

. De fe nd a nts didc la im they wer e having numerous proble ms with t h e mobi le home and that there w ere many misrepre sentations by

Clay ton. These a lleg ations may well be pe rtinent in a l aw s u it involvi ng Clay ton, but Cl ayton simpl y is not a party

to this l awsuit. Althoug h Def endants insist that Pl aintiff and Clayton should be considere d one and the same beca use they have the same manag ement and boards of direc tors, Def

endants off

ere d absolutely

no competent pr oof to support this alleg ation. 2

We conclude that Defe ndants failed to e stablish a g enuine issue of materia l fac t for trial and, therefor e, the Trial Court’s g rant of summary judgme nt to Pl aintiff is aff irmed. I n rea ching this conclusion, we ex press no opini on whatsoeve r on De fenda nts’ various alleg ations reg arding the condition of the mobile home or the a lleg ed misrepr esentations byClay ton.

The sec ond issue involves Defe ndants’ re quest that this Court esse ntially transfe r the prese nt c ase to the United States District Court so the issues here in c an be re solved along with the

o t h e r i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d i n t h a t c a s e

. D e f e n d a n t s h a v e c i t e d u s n o a u t h o r i t y, n o r ar e w e a w ar e o f

a n y, which would indicate that we ha ve the powe r t o transfe r t his case to the f eder al court sy stem. Even if we didha ve su c h a n o pti on , w e wo uld , r e sp e c tf ull y , d e c lin e . T his iss ue is w ith ou t me ri t.

Conclusion
The judgment of the Trial Court is aff irmed, and this cause is rema nded to the Tria l Court for collec tion of the costs below. Costs on appea l are assessed a g ainst the Appellants Joseph R o t e l l o a n d N i n a

R o t e l l o , a n d t h e i r

s u r e t y.

___________________________________

D. MI CHAEL

SW I NEY, JUDGE