Opinion ID: 2011918
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: IV, VIII and IX.

Text: Judge Anderson, after a hearing in April 1965, denied Dodson's motion for summary judgment. He pointed out, in his opinion, that the appellee denied having any assets of Adams. The church had filed an affidavit of defense to the effect there were no obligations due and owing by it to Adams. It should be noted, however, that this affidavit was made by Adams. He thought it necessary, therefore, that testimony be taken so that    [Dodson] may prove the debt and the fraudulent transfer, if any. He found there were material issues of fact to be decided, and in view of the confused state of the pleadings and issues he denied the motion. We think Judge Anderson was correct. After the trial, in October 1966, Dodson filed a motion for a new trial and another motion for summary judgment. We cannot, of course, review the denial of the motion for a new trial since that was within the sound discretion of the trial judge and there is no indication of an abuse of that discretion. Judge Mathias' denial of the second motion for summary judgment was correct for the same reasons given by Judge Anderson in denying the earlier motion.