Opinion ID: 1983601
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: pleading affirmative defense

Text: As we interpret the stipulation quoted in the footnote, supra, and the judgment entered in accordance with it, it has been conclusively adjudicated that Rugby Milling did not convert the grain of Logosz. It is not disputed that Logosz signed a note promising to pay Rugby Milling the sum of $6,657.79, due October 26, 1974. When sued upon that note, Logosz answered alleging that the claim was exaggerated, excessive, and not truly representative of the indebtedness. The trial court held that this did not constitute an assertion of the defense of failure of consideration, which is an affirmative defense required by Rule 8(c), N.D.R. Civ.P., to be pleaded affirmatively, and by Rule 8(e), to be simple, concise, and direct. Rule 8(b), N.D.R.Civ.P., requires that A party shall state in short and plain terms his defenses . . . and Rule 8(f) requires courts to construe pleadings so as to do substantial justice. The trial court had before it, when it made its ruling, affidavits and a deposition in which Logosz admitted that he signed the note in question voluntarily. He did not specifically deny signing the note in his pleadings, nor did he at any time deny that the note was supported by some consideration. Under Section 41-03-37, N.D.C.C. (U.C.C. § 3-307), 1. Unless specifically denied in the pleadings each signature on an instrument is admitted. . . . 2. When signatures are admitted or established, production of the instrument entitles a holder to recover on it unless the defendant establishes a defense. A prima facie case was therefore made out by Rugby Milling. See Loew v. Minasian, 361 Mass. 390, 280 N.E.2d 688 (1972); Center Bank v. Mid-Continent Meats, Inc., 194 Neb. 665, 234 N.W.2d 902 (1975). We believe the trial court acted well within its range of discretion in holding that the affirmative defense of failure of consideration was not pleaded. Prestin v. Baumgartner, 47 Wis.2d 574, 177 N.W.2d 825 (1970); Center Bank v. Mid-Continent Meats, Inc., supra . We also note in passing the existence of a serious question as to whether consideration for the note was required at all, in view of the fact that it was apparently given either in compromise or as a novation. See Section 41-03-45, N.D.C.C. (U.C.C. § 3-408), providing that . . . no consideration is necessary for an instrument or obligation thereon given in payment of or as security for an antecedent obligation of any kind. Logosz next argues that the trial judge erred in finding that no issue of fact remained. He contends that under Rule 12(h), N.D.R.Civ.P., his affirmative defense was not waived even if not pleaded, citing Reishus v. Implement Dealers Mutual Insurance Co., 118 N.W.2d 673 (N.D.1962). However, that case involved facts which, while they might have been pleaded as an affirmative defense, could also have been asserted as sufficient to show a failure of the plaintiff to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Under Rule 12(h)(2), N.D.R.Civ.P., the defense of failure to state a claim may be made in any pleading permitted or ordered under Rule 7(a), or by motion for judgment on the pleadings, or at the trial on the merits. However, Rugby Milling's complaint is not subject to the defense of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In an action on a note, such as the case before us, it is not necessary to allege consideration, which is implied; rather, in order to state a claim, it is sufficient to set out a copy of the note and the amount claimed to be due. In this case, Rugby Milling stated a legal claim, and therefore failure of consideration cannot be raised under Rule 12(h)(2), N.D.R. Civ.P., but must be pleaded as an affirmative defense under Rule 8, N.D.R.Civ.P. Logosz next argues that even if this court finds that his affirmative defense was not well pleaded, it was improper for the trial court to grant Rugby Milling's motion for summary judgment in light of the possibility of amendment to the pleadings under Rule 15(b), N.D.R.Civ.P. Since no amendment was ever requested, the possibility of amendment was only hypothetical. If the mere possibility of amendment were to be considered by a trial court in deciding motions for summary judgment, successful invocations of summary judgment would be rare, and the purpose of Rule 56, N.D.R. Civ.P., to eliminate trials of actions in which there is no genuine issue of fact, would be subverted. The mere possibility that ingenuity of counsel might make possible the pleading of an issue of fact does not preclude the granting of a motion for summary judgment on the pleadings and evidence as they exist when the ruling is made. Dardis v. Eddy Brothers, 223 N.W.2d 674 (N.D.1974), cited by Logosz, is not contrary to this view. It involved an issue tried by consent and an amendment of the pleadings to conform to the evidence. The difference between that case and this one is clear. Affirmed. ERICKSTAD, C. J., and PAULSON and SAND, JJ., concur.