Opinion ID: 1657369
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Alternative Basis for ITT's Summary Judgment

Text: Because our review is de novo, the trial court's order may be affirmed in this Court on an entirely different basis than that posited at trial. Cf. Zafft v. Eli Lilly & Co., 676 S.W.2d 241, 243-44 (Mo. banc 1984) (summary judgment affirmed on alternative theory). Our review of the record in this case shows that summary judgment in favor of ITT was proper without regard to the genuine issue of fact arising out of Evert's affirmative defense to the May 20, 1987 guaranty. As previously noted, Evert executed three guaranties in favor of ITT. Any one of the three guaranties, if valid, would support the full measure of liability that ITT seeks. ITT's motion shows beyond any genuine dispute that the second guaranty, executed January 28, 1986, is valid and enforceable. Moreover, Evert's response fails to create any genuine issue of fact about validity or enforceability as to that guaranty. ITT attached to its petition copies of three separate, but identical, guaranties bearing Evert's signature. These contracts bore dates of January 24 and 26, 1986, and May 20, 1987. Evert's first amended answer raised the affirmative defense that ITT has altered the instruments in question. As discussed in section II, D, 2, supra, this claim is insufficient to raise an affirmative defense; Evert does not provide factual averments showing which instruments were altered or the nature of the claimed alterations. In his deposition, attached to ITT's motion, Evert asserts that the signature of Donna Evert, his wife from whom he was separated at the time he executed the guaranties, had been added after he had signed. The implication is that her signature had been forged. This is immaterial, however, in that Evert, alone, is being sued on the guaranty and the validity of his former wife's signature is of no moment in establishing his personal liability. Therefore, even assuming that Evert's affirmative defense had been sufficiently pleaded, which it is not, ITT has shown that Evert's affirmative defense will fail as a matter of law when the January 28, 1986 guaranty is taken as the basis of liability. The second defense, commercially unreasonable disposition of collateral, has also been held insufficient as a matter of law in section II, D, 2, supra. Evert's final affirmative defense, fraudulent inducement, is limited by its own terms to the May 20, 1987 guaranty. Therefore, ITT has shown the facts necessary to support its right to judgment as a matter of law on the January 28, 1986 guaranty. Evert admitted in his deposition, offered as part of ITT's motion, that the signature on the January 28 guaranty appears to be my signature. Evert's affidavit, filed in response to ITT's summary judgment motion, denies signing the January 24 guaranty, admits signing the May 20, 1987 guaranty, but is silent on the genuineness of the January 28 guaranty. Moreover, the affidavit of Evert's handwriting expert, used to show that the signature on the January 24 guaranty is not genuine, shows that Evert's signature on the January 28 guaranty was genuine because it was offered as an exemplar of Evert's genuine signature. In an effort to avoid these admissions, Evert points to his deposition testimony, filed with ITT's motion, in which he states that he did not believe the signature on the January 28 guaranty was his because it was only four days after the first guaranty and that he did not believe he would duplicate such an undertaking. This testimony is unintelligible in light of the fact that Evert flatly denies having signed the earlier guaranty and, therefore, there would have been no duplication so far as he knew. In any event, a party may not avoid summary judgment by giving inconsistent testimony and then offering the inconsistencies into the record in order to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact. Here, Evert holds the January 28 signature forth as valid by using it as the partial basis of his expert's opinion that the January 24 signature is a forgery. He cannot then point to deposition testimony in which he doubts that the January 28 signature is his and call it a genuine issue of fact. Therefore, we hold that the only relevant material submitted by Evert in response to ITT's motion for summary judgment, the handwriting expert's affidavit, does not create a fact question as to the authenticity of the January 28 guaranty and, in fact, serves as further proof that that guaranty was genuine. Additionally, we note that Rule 55.23 provides that where a party's claim or defense depends on a written instrument and that party has attached a copy of the instrument to its pleading, the execution of such instrument shall be deemed confessed unless the party charged to have executed the same shall specifically deny the execution thereof. Evert did not specifically deny the execution of any of the guaranties in either his original or his amended answer. It is the sense of [Rule 55.23] that the answering defendant must clearly state its position if an issue of authenticity of a document attached to the petition is intended to be raised. Lutsky v. Blue Cross Hosp. Service, Inc., 695 S.W.2d 870, 872 (Mo. banc 1985). Therefore, the validity of Evert's signatures, at least with respect to the January 28, 1986 guaranty is deemed confessed and cannot be challenged by way of response to a properly supported summary judgment motion. We hold, therefore, with regard to ITT's motion for summary judgment on its petition, that ITT has shown, beyond any genuine dispute, facts that support its right to judgment based on either the January 28, 1986 guaranty or the May 20, 1987 guaranty. Evert's response, while it creates a genuine issue of fact as to the validity of the May 20, 1987 guaranty, fails to contradict any fact necessary to ITT's right to judgment on the January 28, 1986 guaranty. Accordingly, we hold that, on the basis of the record before us, summary judgment is properly granted in favor of ITT.