From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

S. Cent. State Bank v. Moss

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION
Apr 3, 2018
CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00185 BSM (E.D. Ark. Apr. 3, 2018)

Opinion

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00185 BSM

04-03-2018

SOUTH CENTRAL STATE BANK PLAINTIFF v. JEFFREY SCOTT MOSS, et al. DEFENDANTS


ORDER

Plaintiff South Central State Bank's ("SCSB") motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 9] is granted.

SCSB seeks to collect on a defaulted loan, which is governed by a note, security agreement, and commitment. Mot. Summ. J. ¶ 1; Exs. A, B, C, Doc. No. 9. Defendants admit that they signed the note, received the loan, and that SCSB is entitled to a judgment. Answer ¶¶ 6-8, 10-11, Doc. No. 5. Defendants, however, deny the damages claimed by SCSB because SCSB has provided insufficient proof as to the amount owed and because defendants may not have been given adequate notice of their rights under the Arkansas Farm Creditor Mediation Program. Id. ¶ 10.

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986). Once the moving party demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute of material fact, the non-moving party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials in his pleadings. Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d 336, 340 (8th Cir. 2011). Instead, the non-moving party must produce admissible evidence demonstrating a genuine factual dispute requiring a trial. Id. "If a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party's assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(2).

In support of summary judgment, SCSB supplied copies of the note, the loan commitment, and an affidavit showing the amount due on the loan, accruing interest, and late fees. See Mot. Summ. J. Exs. A, B, C. SCSB also argues that the Arkansas Farm Creditor Mediation Program's notice requirements do not apply. Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 4, Doc. No. 10. Defendants have failed to respond to SCSB's motion for summary judgment, and the time to do so has expired. Hence, there is not a material dispute of fact as to the amount owed, and SCSB is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Judgment is therefore entered for SCSB in the amount of $176,347.72, pre-judgment interest at a rate of $23.22 per day and pre-judgment late charges at a rate of $25.87 per day from and after January 31, 2018, and post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1961. If appropriate, SCSB may file a separate motion for costs and attorney's fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of April 2018.

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

S. Cent. State Bank v. Moss

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION
Apr 3, 2018
CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00185 BSM (E.D. Ark. Apr. 3, 2018)
Case details for

S. Cent. State Bank v. Moss

Case Details

Full title:SOUTH CENTRAL STATE BANK PLAINTIFF v. JEFFREY SCOTT MOSS, et al. DEFENDANTS

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION

Date published: Apr 3, 2018

Citations

CASE NO. 3:17-CV-00185 BSM (E.D. Ark. Apr. 3, 2018)

Citing Cases

San Antonio Irrigation Co. v. Deutschmann

In that case there had been an agreement to issue stock in excess of the amount paid, and the court held that…