Opinion ID: 787570
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Loan Transactions in Stone v. AMP

Text: 41 AMP's president presented undisputed deposition testimony that established AMP had a preexisting relationship with FirstPlus. Thus, this element of the district court's test is met for all Borrowers suing AMP. Similarly, the undisputed affidavit of AMP's president established that AMP assigned each loan to FirstPlus shortly after its execution and contemporaneously with loan funding. The checks payable to the Stones and the Mayfields are dated after AMP assigned their loans to FirstPlus. Thus, there is no issue of fact as to whether AMP used its own money; it did not. 42 However, there is no evidence to show that either the Stones or the Browns were apprised that their loans would be assigned from AMP to FirstPlus. Thus, AMP failed to establish this element of the test, and there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Stones and the Browns were apprised of the assignment at the time that they executed their loan documents. The district court thus erred in granting summary judgment on their claims. 43 The district court correctly granted summary judgment on the Mayfields' claims. Mayfield testified in deposition that he knew his loan was being assigned; he did not object. Thus all elements of the test are met and there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether AMP table-funded the Mayfields' loan. 44