#Dakota compton trial

When a trial court's order granting summary judgment does not specify the grounds relied upon, the reviewing court must affirm the summary judgment if any of the summary judgment grounds are meritorious. We review a summary judgment de novo to determine whether a party's right to prevail is established as a matter of law. Every reasonable inference must be indulged in favor of the nonmovant and any doubts resolved in its favor. In deciding whether a disputed material fact issue exists precluding summary judgment, evidence favorable to the nonmovant will be taken as true. The movant has the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. We review summary judgments under well-established standards. The trial court granted Citibank's motion for summary judgment without stating the basis for its decision. Accordingly, the only summary judgment evidence before the trial court was the affidavit of Citibank's records custodian, Kathy Rizor, and the attachments to Rizor's affidavit. The trial court also sustained Compton's objection to late-filed evidence offered by Citibank in its reply to Compton's summary judgment response. The trial court sustained most of those objections, and Compton does not assert on appeal that the trial court erred in sustaining those objections. Compton's response included his affidavit, to which Citibank objected. Citibank's summary judgment consisted of a records custodian's affidavit that attached account records exceeding 170 pages. After Compton answered the lawsuit, asserting general and specific denials and affirmative defenses, Citibank moved for summary judgment on both of its claims. We affirm the trial court's judgment.Ĭitibank sued Compton alleging breach of contract and account stated based on credit card debt. Compton contends the trial court erred in granting Citibank's motion for summary judgment on the account stated claim because (a) there was no evidence Compton agreed to a certain amount owed, that account statements were delivered to him, and evidence showed Compton had not seen any account statements and (b) Citibank alleged that an express contract existed between the parties. Compton contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on Citibank's breach of contract cause of action because (a) Compton's affidavit raised a genuine issue of material fact on Citibank's breach of contract claim (b) Citibank's evidence created a fact issue concerning the applicable finance charge and (c) Compton was entitled to rely on the terms of the express contract, and the trial court erred in finding he acknowledged any other terms or amounts due. On appeal, Compton presents six issues asserting the trial court erred in granting Citibank's motion for summary judgment. on its claims for breach of contract and account stated.

appeals the trial court's judgment in favor of Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. Adkins, for Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.Īmo Compton, Jr.

Decided: March 30, 2012īefore Justices MORRIS, FILLMORE, and MYERS.