Cumberland Contractors Inc. v. State Bank Trust Co.

State Bank and Trust Company, Inc. “State Bank”, as successor to the original lender, sued Cumberland Contractors, Inc. and Michael and Lucy Thomas collectively, the “Defendants” to recover amounts owing on several promissory notes and guarantees. The Thomases filed counterclaims for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court dismissed these counterclaims and also denied the Defendants’ motion to enforce a settlement agreement. At trial, the Defendants moved for a directed verdict, and the trial court denied their motions. The trial court entered a judgment in State Bank’s favor following the jury’s verdict. After the Defendants filed a notice of appeal, State Bank filed a motion for supersedeas bond, which the trial court denied.

In Case No. A13A2221, the Defendants contend that the trial court erred in: 1 granting State Bank’s motion in limine ruling that State Bank was the real party in interest to sue on the notes and guarantees; 2 dismissing the Thomases’ counterclaims; 3 denying their motion to enforce a settlement agreement; 4 denying their motion for a directed verdict on collection of the promissory notes; 5 denying their motion for a directed verdict as to State Bank’s claim for attorney fees; and 6 charging the jury on the doctrine of holder in due course. In Case No. A13A2222, State Bank contends that the trial court erred in denying its motion for supersedeas bond.