Rooks v. Robb, 2015 ND 274

Between 2002–2004 David Robb received loans from his mother, Ruby Robb; on 10/24/2004 he executed a promissory note for $121,500 payable to Ruby M. Robb (no due date).
Ruby created the Ruby M. Robb Living Trust on 9/13/2004 and named American State Bank as trustee; payments on the note were later made payable to the Trust.
American State Bank stopped administering the trust and Debbie Rooks (Robb’s sister) became successor trustee; Robb stopped making payments thereafter.
As trustee, Rooks sued Robb in 2013 to recover on the note; she produced an affidavit from an American State Bank trust manager asserting the note had been assigned to the Trust (schedule of trust assets was lost).
The district court granted summary judgment to Rooks, finding (1) the affidavit established the assignment, and (2) the note was payable on demand; Robb appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trust manager's affidavit met Rule 56(e) (personal knowledge, non‑conclusory)	Rooks: affidavit establishes assignment of the note to the Trust	Robb: affidavit is conclusory and not based on personal knowledge	Court: affidavit insufficient — it lacks facts showing personal knowledge and is conclusory; district court erred
Whether there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to assignment	Rooks: no admissible evidence contradicts the affidavit; assignment is uncontroverted	Robb: absence of documentary proof and affidavit defects create a genuine dispute; he cannot produce evidence of a nonexistent assignment	Court: genuine dispute exists; movant must clearly show no trial issue and Rooks failed to do so
Whether the note was payable on demand (district court's alternative holding)	Rooks: note is payable on demand as a matter of law	Robb: (argued below) disputed characterization and factual issues	Court: declined to reach this issue on appeal because dispositive error was ruling on assignment; remanded for further proceedings

McColl Farms, LLC v. Pflaum, 837 N.W.2d 359 (N.D. 2013) (attorney/affidavit on information and belief is not substitute for personal knowledge)
Perius v. Nodak Mut. Ins. Co., 782 N.W.2d 355 (N.D. 2010) (conclusory affidavit allegations insufficient to create genuine issue)
Black v. Abex Corp., 603 N.W.2d 182 (N.D. 1999) (discussing Celotex and the difficulty of proving a negative at summary judgment)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment principles when record lacks evidence to support an essential element)