Wells Fargo Bank, V Duma Video
49531-7
| Wash. Ct. App. | Sep 19, 2017Background
- Duma Video, Inc. entered a business line of credit with Wells Fargo in 2012; Sultan Weatherspoon personally guaranteed the debt and later defaulted.
- Wells Fargo sued in 2015 to collect about $52,399.89. It moved for summary judgment in April 2016, attaching the signed credit agreement and a billing statement showing the balance.
- Weatherspoon declared he negotiated a settlement with Wells Fargo representative Amanda Layton to resolve the debt for $23,000, sent a confirming April 25, 2015 letter, and made two $1,000 payments under that agreement.
- Wells Fargo denied agreeing to any $23,000 settlement, produced a May 5, 2015 letter from Layton stating a payment plan culminating in the full balance due August 8, 2015, and denied receiving the $2,000 payments.
- At the summary judgment hearing Duma sought a continuance under CR 56(f) to subpoena recordings and depose Layton; the trial court denied the continuance, granted Wells Fargo summary judgment, and entered judgment for $52,399.89.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a genuine issue of material fact exists on whether parties agreed to settle the debt for $23,000 | Weatherspoon: he and Layton agreed to settle for $23,000; he sent confirming letter and paid $2,000 | Wells Fargo: it never accepted a $23,000 settlement; Layton’s written confirmation shows full balance remained due | Reversed: genuine factual dispute exists about existence of settlement and payments, defeating summary judgment |
| Whether Weatherspoon’s declaration alone suffices to defeat summary judgment without additional documentary proof | Declaration is competent and based on personal knowledge; CR 56(e) permits such affidavits to create a factual issue | Wells Fargo argued lack of documentary proof undermines the declaration | Court held the affidavit met CR 56(e) and could create a genuine issue of material fact |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying CR 56(f) continuance to obtain Layton’s testimony and phone recordings | Duma sought continuance to gather evidence supporting the settlement claim | Wells Fargo opposed delay and moved for immediate summary judgment | Court found reversal on summary judgment outcome dispositive and did not reach the continuance issue |
| Whether the moving party met initial summary judgment burden | Wells Fargo produced the contract and billing statement showing outstanding balance | Duma did not challenge Wells Fargo’s initial showing, instead rebutted with affidavit evidence | Court did not decide in detail but treated Wells Fargo as having made an adequate showing; focus was on Duma’s rebuttal evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Ranger Ins. Co. v. Pierce County, 164 Wn.2d 545 (summary judgment reviewed de novo; standard for CR 56)
- Michael v. Mosquera-Lacy, 165 Wn.2d 595 (definition of genuine issue of material fact)
- Barber v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 81 Wn.2d 140 (summary judgment principles)
- Jones v. State, 170 Wn.2d 338 (no credibility assessments on summary judgment)
- Am. Express Centurion Bank v. Stratman, 172 Wn. App. 667 (appellate summary judgment review principles)
- Bernal v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 87 Wn.2d 406 (affidavits admissible to create factual issues under CR 56)
- Meyer v. Univ. of Wash., 105 Wn.2d 847 (burden-shifting on summary judgment)
- Hash v. Children’s Orthopedic Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 110 Wn.2d 912 (summary judgment burden shifting)