Angela Tucker v. University of Kentucky Federal Credit Union

• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky
• Decided: April 27, 2023
• Docket: 2022 CA 000487
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

RENDERED: APRIL 28, 2023; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2022-CA-0487-MR

ANGELA TUCKER APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM WOODFORD CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JEREMY MICHAEL MATTOX, JUDGE ACTION NO. 21-CI-00027

UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; LANES VIEW NEIGHBOORHOOD ASSOCIATION HOME OWNER’S ASSOCIATION; AND WELLS FARGO APPELLEES

OPINION AFFIRMING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; KAREM AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: Angela Tucker, pro se, appeals from an order

granting summary judgment in favor of the University of Kentucky Federal Credit

Union (hereinafter referred to as the Credit Union). We find no error and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 7, 2008, Ms. Tucker entered into a home equity loan with

the Credit Union for $35,000. Ms. Tucker gave the Credit Union a mortgage on

her house in order to secure the loan. On February 9, 2021, the Credit Union filed

the underlying action seeking to recover the amount owed on the mortgage. The

Credit Union claimed that Ms. Tucker had not been making the requisite payments.

On May 20, 2021, the Credit Union filed a motion for summary judgment. The

evidence presented by the Credit Union showed that Ms. Tucker had not been

making full payments on the mortgage, only partial payments. The trial court

granted summary judgment and this appeal followed.

ANALYSIS

The standard of review on appeal of a summary judgment is whether the trial court correctly found that there were no genuine issues as to any material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. . . . “The record must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment and all doubts are to be resolved in his favor.” Summary “judgment is only proper where the movant shows that the adverse party could not prevail under any circumstances.” Consequently, summary judgment must be granted “[o]nly when it appears impossible for the nonmoving party to produce evidence at trial warranting a judgment in his favor[.]”

Scifres v. Kraft, 916 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Ky. App. 1996) (citations omitted).

“Because summary judgment involves only legal questions and the existence of

-2- any disputed material issues of fact, an appellate court need not defer to the trial

court’s decision and will review the issue de novo.” Lewis v. B & R Corporation,

56 S.W.3d 432, 436 (Ky. App. 2001).

Appellant argues that because she was making some payments, the

Credit Union could not file the underlying lawsuit. She also argues that because

she was in forbearance with her primary mortgagor, Wells Fargo, she did not have

to make payments to the Credit Union. Here, the evidence unequivocally shows

that, while Ms. Tucker was making some payments to the Credit Union, she was

not making full or complete payments. Around the time that the Credit Union filed

this action, Ms. Tucker had over $6,000.00 in payment arrearages. Failure to make

full and timely payments violated the agreement between Ms. Tucker and the

Credit Union; therefore, the Credit Union properly brought this action.

Furthermore, a forbearance with Wells Fargo has no bearing on her agreement with

the Credit Union. Ms. Tucker was not in forbearance with the Credit Union.

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing, the trial court did not err in granting

summary judgment to the Credit Union. There were no genuine issues of material

fact that would have precluded summary judgment and the Credit Union was

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

-3- ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY Angela Tucker, pro se FEDERAL CREDIT UNION: Versailles, Kentucky Gregory D. Pavey Felisa S. Moore Lexington, Kentucky

-4-