- 4 -
Respondent’s motion was set for the time previously set for
trial of the case. When the case was called for trial,
petitioner was not prepared to present any evidence and requested
a continuance. Petitioner’s motion for continuance was denied,
but he was allowed 30 days to respond to respondent’s Motion for
Summary Judgment. In Petitioner’s Response to Motion for Summary
Judgment, he asserts the facts quoted above but does not address
his prior communications to GMAC in which he claimed that the
debt was discharged. Petitioner does not suggest, and GMAC’s
records do not show, that any attempt by GMAC to collect the sums
due from petitioner was made at any time after petitioner’s
correspondence to GMAC.
Discussion
Summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact, and a decision may be rendered as
a matter of law. Rule 121(b). Summary judgment is intended to
expedite litigation and to avoid unnecessary and expensive
trials. See Fla. Peach Corp. v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681
(1988). Petitioner was not ready for trial when his case was
called, and the next session in Knoxville would not be
anticipated for another year. In any event, petitioner has not
identified any facts or evidence that would be presented at trial
to controvert the undisputed facts already in the record. See
Rule 121(d), providing, in pertinent part, that a response “must
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011