Court Opinion

ID: 9530917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:05:14.246687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:17.531114
License: Public Domain

Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE JONES, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. If plaintiff’s statements in his deposition are taken as true, as indeed they must be in this instance, then the dismissal of criminal charges against him were the result of a compromise procured by defendant. Accordingly, there is no issue of fact to try, and summary judgment was properly entered. The statements of defendant that should foreclose any further consideration of this case are contained in the majority opinion. Set forth in narrative form, the defendant stated: “After I was indicted and arrested I went in and talked to them [the bank officials] to see if I couldn’t make some kind of arrangement to pay this debt that I owed. I wanted these charges dropped. That’s the essence of the whole thing. I discussed it with Bill Meehan [the special prosecutor] and we agreed that if I would pay my money the charges would be dismissed. I then paid the bank in the next 30 days and the charges were dropped.” It would be difficult to envision more direct evidence that the charges were dropped as a result of compromise and that the plaintiff was the moving party. Ewe v. Angland sets forth the guiding principles and its rule should be applied here. The majority gives credence to plaintiff’s “Counter Affidavit Opposing Summary Judgment, etc.” where none is due. Its substance is that there will be other evidence presented if the cause is tried. No facts are stated that would indicate in any way what those facts might be. The majority states that there is no indication who the parties were that entered into the pay/dismiss agreement. However, the plaintiff’s own statements, capsulized above, refute such statement. Summary judgment was properly entered, and I would affirm.