Homans Assoc., Inc. v. Portland Air Conditioning, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO: CV-p7-056 -?PC - etA M - I ;;LIla! d- 007 HOMANS ASSOCIATES, INC/ HOMANS ASSOCIATES'e LLC "Q"~." '-.-. '- " ,".~; :'.. ·Lk:;c"·.:; ;; .... " ,:\ ~,~,. ;r: ,.,1.,/.,/.;!,_~)mca . . ' ,~: \"':.;,r'6RDER ON PLAINTIFFS' Plaintiffs, oS'... , t,,,, v. j L ,::: _,~ ,l'--~,-~ ''; ,~. '" i MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CONDITIO~1~Sfi!.\~~D PORTLAND AIR KATHRYN MOONEY, Defendants. This case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Homans Associates, Inc. and Homans Associates, LLC'S (Plaintiffs) Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 56. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The facts of this case are undisputed as Defendants have failed to properly respond to Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 56(c), (e), and (h). Plaintiffs brought this action in order to collect on a debt owed by Defendant Portland Air Conditioning, Inc. (Portland Air) which debt was personally guaranteed by Defendant Kathryn Mooney (Ms. Mooney) (collectively the "Defendants"). The Defendants received materials supplied by Plaintiffs and have failed to pay the invoices due for those materials. The amount outstanding on the invoices is $54,069.29. The credit agreement also provided for interest and attorneys fess. With interest and service fees the total amount claimed through August 30,2007 is $67,980.52. Plaintiff claims $1,757.00 in attorney's fess through August 31, 2007 by affidavit of Jeffrey Jones, Esq. 1 Defendants deny that a credit agreement exists between the parties and deny that there have been no payments have been made on the invoices. STANDARD OF REVIEW Summary judgment is proper where there exist no genuine issues of material fact such that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. M.R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Levine v. KB.K. Caly Corp., 2001 ME 77, <JI 4, 770 A.2d 653, 655. A genuine issue is raised "when sufficient evidence requires a fact-finder to choose between competing versions of the truth at trial." Parrish v. Wright, 2003 ME 90, <JI 8, 828 A.2d 778, 781. A material fact is a fact that has "the potential to affect the outcome of the suit." Burdzel v. Sobus, 2000 ME 84, <JI 6, 750 A.2d 573, 575. "If material facts are disputed, the dispute must be resolved through fact-finding." Curtis v. Porter, 2001 ME 158, Cj[ 7, 784 A.2d 18, 22. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on September 18, 2007. Defendants filed a timely opposition on October 1, 2007; however, the opposition failed to comply with the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. See M.R. Civ. P. 56. According to those rules, "an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of that party's pleading, but must respond by affidavit or as otherwise provided in this rule.... " M.R. Civ. P. 56(e). Consequently, Defendants had the "obligation to come forward with affidavits or other materials setting forth by competent proof specific facts that would be admissible in evidence... " Bangor & Aroostook KK Co. v. Daigle, 607 A.2d 533, 535 (Me. 1992) (citations omitted). Facts not properly controverted are deemed admitted. M.R. Civ. P. 56(h)(4). 2 Defendants' only filing in opposition to summary judgment is a reply to Plaintiffs' statement of material facts. There is no memorandum of law and ther are no affidavits in support of the opposition. The denials are largely unsupported by any record citations. The only record citation given is a reference to an "Exhibit A - Vendor Ledger" attached to the opposition. It appears to be a vender ledger from Portland Air Conditioning, but no affidavit is associated with the exhibit to provide a foundation, nor is it stipulated to by Plaintiffs. Consequently, the citation reference is inadmissible under M.R. Civ. P. 56(e). The Defendants claim that the credit agreement between the parties is not binding as Plaintiffs' corporate status has changed. For the same reasons, Defendants claim that Kathryn Mooney's personal guaranty is not valid. Moreover, Defendants claim that some payments have been made to Plaintiffs. In contrast, Plaintiffs' have moved for summary judgment and supported that motion in compliance with the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. See M.R. Civ. P. 56(e). Plaintiffs have filed invoices credited by an affidavit of Karen Tise, Plaintiffs' Credit Manager, as well as Defendants' credit agreement with Plaintiffs (also supported by affidavit). Each statement of material fact proffered by Plaintiffs is supported by a specific record citation. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs' statement of material facts are deemed admitted because they have not been properly controverted. Accordingly, summary judgment is granted to Plaintiffs as a matter of law because there are no genuine issues of material fact in controversy. 3 Therefore, the entry is: Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment against Defendants is GRANTED. Under a credit agreement Defendants owe Plaintiffs $67,980.52 plus attorney's fees in the amount of $1,757.00. The clerk shall incorporate this Order into the docket by reference pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 79(a). Dated at Portland, Maine this IZtP day of -4--J-~::!!:S~v"-V 4 : COURTS nd County ox 287 le 04112-0287 JEFFREY JONES ESQ 243 US ROUTE ONE SCARBOROUGH ME 04074 F COURTS md County lox 287 'Ie 04112-0287 KATHRYN HOONEY/PORTLAND AIR CONDITIONING 401 MANSONLIBBY ROAD SCARBOROUGH HE 04074
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
