Marvin J. Butler v. First South Financial Credit Union, W2018-00917-COA-R3-CV

Butler opened an account with First South in 2002 and received account terms. The account was later closed by the credit union.
Butler sued in 2016 alleging discrimination, breach of fiduciary duty, and misappropriation of funds after the account was closed without explanation.
First South moved for summary judgment, supported by affidavits and an undisputed facts statement, asserting the account was closed per the account agreement because of Butler’s repeated threatening and violent behavior toward staff.
Bank’s Risk Manager described two incidents (June 2014 and June 2015) in which Butler threatened staff, damaged property, and refused to leave until police were called; Bank produced account statements and a final balance payment.
The chancery court initially granted Butler extra time to respond; Butler still failed to file a response. The court granted summary judgment for the Bank for failure to respond and alternatively found Butler had not stated viable claims. A temporary injunction/restraining order limiting Butler’s contact with court personnel was also entered during the proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment was erroneous	Butler argued he lacked sufficient time as a pro se litigant and was hampered by the injunction, so he could not properly respond	First South argued it proved entitlement to judgment: account closure authorized by agreement and supported by affidavits; Butler failed to respond to undisputed facts	Affirmed: summary judgment proper because Butler did not respond to a properly supported motion and had been afforded additional time
Whether Bank discriminated or breached fiduciary duty	Butler alleged discrimination and misappropriation of funds when account was closed	Bank denied wrongdoing, asserted termination was pursuant to agreement and provided records showing payment of final balance	Pretermitted: court affirmed dismissal for failure to respond; alternative merits ruling found Butler failed to sufficiently plead claims
Whether injunction/recusal was improperly handled	Butler contended Chancellor should have recused and injunction was improper	Bank and court noted injunction was limited, supported by affidavits, and still allowed Butler access to court	Rejected: Butler did not move for recusal and record lacked evidence of bias or improper handling
Whether Butler entitled to other relief	Butler sought other remedies and review of procedural handling	Bank opposed additional relief	Denied: no reversible error shown; appeal costs taxed to Butler

Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (summary judgment burden-shifting and proof standards)
Martin v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 271 S.W.3d 76 (Tenn. 2008) (viewing evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party on summary judgment)
Young v. Barrow, 130 S.W.3d 59 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (pro se litigants must follow procedural rules and are not excused from compliance)