Opinion ID: 1368807
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: is merdes entitled to summary judgment on the interest issue?

Text: Merdes asserts that Underwood should not have prevailed on the interest issue because he proffered no relevant evidence but merely relied on his pleadings. Underwood argues that the same admissible evidence which supports estoppel with regard to the interest issue also establishes a genuine issue of fact concerning the question of whether or not Merdes agreed to pay interest. We agree with Underwood. Although sufficient facts have not been presented to warrant summary judgment against Merdes, if all reasonable inferences are drawn against Merdes as the moving party, the same evidence on which Underwood bases his estoppel argument raises genuine issues of material fact as to whether or not Merdes agreed to pay 12% simple interest. [5] Merdes followed the accountants' 12% amortization table in deducting his taxes. He deducted $39,392.00 of the payments he made to Underwood as interest. Further, Merdes made a specific agreement to pay the OHM debt, which is sufficiently ambiguous as to raise the possibility of an interest term. [6] Thus, we hold that there are disputed facts going to the issue of whether Merdes agreed to pay interest and whether he agreed to pay 12% simple interest.