Reeves v. Mohawk Factoring Inc.

A jury question remained as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to collect the balance remaining on the purchase of certain carpet products sold to defendant on account by plaintiff's parent company.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Lisa H. Reeves, d/b/a Clairmont Carpet Connection, appeals following the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Mohawk Factoring, Inc. Reeves was in the business of selling retail carpets and floor coverings. In connection with that business, she signed an application to purchase carpet products on account with “Mohawk Carpet Corporation/Karlstad Bigelow/Harbinger/Helios Individually and Collectively Mohawk.” The application also contained a personal guarantee of payment by Reeves. During 1999, Reeves became indebted to Mohawk Carpet in the amount of $25,168.58. And in December 2000, Mohawk Factoring filed a complaint against Reeves seeking to collect this amount. Reeves does not dispute that this amount is owing on the account, but she disputes that the debt is due and owing to Mohawk Factoring . She notes that she never contracted with that entity and asserts that Mohawk Factoring has failed to prove its right to collect the debt.

On appeal from a grant of summary judgment, this Court conducts a de novo review of the record, construing the evidence and all inferences therefrom most favorably to the non-moving party. Maddox v. Southern Engineering Co. , 231 Ga. App. 802, 802-803 500 SE2d 591 1998. “The movant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law unless, construing the evidence most favorably to the non-moving party, the movant shows a prima facie case. Unless and until the movant meets this initial burden, no evidentiary burden shifts to the non-movant.” Young v. Faulkner , 251 Ga. App. 847, 848 555 SE2d 221 2001. Accordingly, Mohawk Factoring bears the burden on summary judgment of showing that it is entitled to collect on Reeves’s account.

Reeves v. Mohawk Factoring Inc.

A jury question remained as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to collect the balance remaining on the purchase of certain carpet products sold to defendant on account by plaintiff's parent company.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report