United States District Court, Western District of Michigan, Southern Division
HUGH W. BRENNEMAN, JR., UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff, WM Capital Partners, LLC (“WM Capital”) filed the present diversity action against defendants Michael C. Coon (“Mr. Coon”) and Shea Coon (“Mrs. Coon”) (collectively referred to as “Borrowers”) for failure to pay amounts owed on two promissory notes. This matter is now before the court on WM Capital’s second motion for summary judgment (docket no. 39).
The Court set forth the underlying facts in this case in its September 22, 2014 Opinion (docket no. 33). To summarize, the Borrowers obtained a loan from the Tennessee Commerce Bank, which plaintiff WM Capital purchased from the FDIC. On October 3, 2012, the relevant promissory note matured and all amounts due to WM Capital became immediately due and owing. On February 20, 2013, WM Capital sent a demand letter to each of the Borrowers notifying them that they were in default and that the entire $109, 489.87 balance of the indebtedness was immediately due and owing. See Demand Letters (docket nos. 2-1 and 2-2).
WM Capital’s Complaint consisted of two counts for relief. In Count I, WM Capital alleged that Mr. Coon failed to make payments pursuant to the loan documents, which included all principal and accrued interest not paid as of October 3, 2012, a late charge in the amount of 5% for each late payment, and all attorneys’ fees and expenses incurred by TCB and WM Capital. Compl. (docket no. 1 at pp. ID## 3-4). This resulted in an amount due from Mr. Coon in excess of $109, 489.87 plus interest, late charges and attorneys’ fees and expenses. Id. at p. ID# 4. In Count II, WM Capital alleged the same claims against Mrs. Coon. Id. at pp. ID## 4-5.
WM Capital moved for summary judgment on both counts. In its opinion and order entered on September 22, 2014, the Court granted the motion on the issue of liability, denied the motion without prejudice as to the issue of damages, and allowed WM Capital to file a renewed motion for summary judgment to establish the amount owed by the Borrowers. See Opinion (docket no. 33); Order (docket no. 34). This matter is now before the Court on WM Capital’s second motion for summary judgment which seeks to establish the amount owed.
II. Legal Standard
“The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Rule 56 further provides that “[a] party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by”:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).
In Copeland v. Machulis, 57 F.3d 476 (6th Cir. 1995), the court set forth the parties’ burden of proof in deciding a motion for summary judgment:
The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. Once the moving party has met its burden of production, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but must present significant probative evidence in support of the complaint to defeat the motion for summary judgment. The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence to support plaintiff’s position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.
Copeland, 57 F.3d at 478-79 (citations omitted). “In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court views the factual evidence and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” McLean v. ...