Quantcast

Radiance Capital Receivables Eighteen awarded more than $3 million in suit over promissory note

ST. LOUIS RECORD

Thursday, December 26, 2024

Radiance Capital Receivables Eighteen awarded more than $3 million in suit over promissory note

Lawsuits
Gavelmoney

ST. LOUIS – A capital company was victorious in its appeal as the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in the Eastern Division granted its motion for summary judgment and awarded it more than $3 million.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Shirley Padmore Mensah ruled Jan. 25 that plaintiff Radiance Capital Receivables Eighteen LLC is entitled to the $3 million, which consists of unpaid principal, interest and late charges on a promissory note.

The court also denied defendants MBO Investments LLC, et al.s' motion to strike parts of an affidavit and a motion for summary judgment.

“Defendants have failed to prove any viable defenses, and have not otherwise set out specific facts showing that there remains a genuine issue for trial,” the court said. “Plaintiff is entitled, therefore, to summary judgment on enforcement of the note and guaranties.”

Radiance Capital Receivables Eighteen LLC sued MBO Investments LLC, Owen & Sons Development Co. et al. seeking payment for the defendants’ promissory note from a loan Premier Bank gave to MBO for $1.79 million in 2005. The loan was renewed multiple times. 

The order states Radiance Capital Receivables Eighteen purchased the defendants' debt obligations in May 2016.

Both Radiance and the defendants filed for motions for summary judgment in August 2018 and the defendants also filed their motion to strike parts of Radiance’s statement of material facts. 

The defendants sought to strike the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, including an affidavit of Senior Portfolio Manager Jody Burleigh.

"Defendants move to strike all save one paragraph of Ms. Burleigh’s affidavit, arguing that it is inconsistent with her prior testimony, and that she lacks the necessary knowledge to authenticate the documents referred to in the affidavit," the order states.

"Plaintiff argues, and the court agrees, that her deposition testimony is not actually inconsistent with her prior testimony when examined within the context of the entire sequence of deposition questions and answers," Mensah wrote. "...Ms. Burleigh’s affidavit establishes that she had knowledge of the record keeping procedures of Radiance, and that Radiance relied on the accuracy of the incorporated documents. The exhibits are properly authenticated, and may be considered by the court along with other evidence of record."

More News