Court Opinion

ID: 9778436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:04:31.965609+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:08.907848
License: Public Domain

Judge KAY,
dissenting:
] 38 I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the decisions of the trial court and Court of Appeals.
39 The majority's decision on this issue of first impression is inappropriate given the facts of the case and the negative implications such precedent will have on similar cases in the future. Adoption of the majority's newly crafted "reasonable basis" test is unnecessary, and even under the majority's reasonable basis test, the facts set forth show that no reasonable basis exists to support the majority's conclusion.
40 Dr. Stanford made clear in his arguments that he had given no objective indicators that he was making payments to the guaranty. The facts noted by the majority show the Parks sent more than twenty notices to Dr. Stanford requesting payment on the Note as opposed to the guaranty. Not one of the notices sent by the Parks mentioned Dr. Stanford's guaranty. Even when Dr. Stanford made payments with personal checks some of these checks specifically referenced the Note. Objectively, these simple facts invariably point to finding these payments went toward the Note and not the guaranty. The majority correctly points out that "[alfter development of the record, information may indicate some payments may not raise genuine issues of material fact and, consequently, could not be credited toward Dr. Stanford's guaranty liability." 1 The trial court and the Court of Appeals have already decided this issue and found no material issue of fact. The fact that Dr. Stanford may have intended something different and did not make that intent clear does not of itself create an issue of material fact.
€ 41 Additionally, the majority for all practical purposes has prevented the applicability of summary judgment to similar cases that may arise in the future. This case is far from a "prime candidate for remand.2 The newly crafted "reasonable basis" test in essence benefits the failing party. While the majority states the record is sparse, it was *575the defendant that failed to meet his burden on summary judgment to put forth sufficient evidence. What the court has done is to effectively transform a simple legal issue into a question of fact. A test based on reasonableness should be an objective test, but instead the majority seems to apply a subjective test. Given the subjective nature of this decision, it is difficult to imagine any set of facts that would not allow a judge to find some issue of material fact in similar cases. The "rational basis" test is anything but rational, and will only lead to further confusion in the future, both at the trial and appellate level.

. Majority Opinion at 1 34.

. Id.