PHYLLIS WILLIAMS v. LARRY STOVESAND LINCOLN MERCURY, INC., ET AL. - Articles

All Content

PHYLLIS WILLIAMS v. LARRY STOVESAND LINCOLN MERCURY, INC., ET AL.

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Oct 16, 2014

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Thomas B. Russell, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Larry Stovesand Lincoln Mercury, Inc., and Paducah Ford, Inc., d/b/a Paducah Ford Lincoln Mercury, Inc.

Attorneys 2:

F. Dulin Kelly and Clinton L. Kelly, Hendersonville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Phyllis Williams.

Judge(s): STAFFORD

This is a dispute arising from the interpretation of a contract made during an asset sale of one automobile dealership to another. Seller filed a complaint seeking to collect payment pursuant to the contract on the ground that the contract was a promissory note upon which the buyer had defaulted. Buyer argued that the contract was actually for the payment of future rents to Seller, who remained the owner of the real estate upon which Buyer operated his automobile dealership. Seller filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court determined that, because the contract was an unambiguous promissory note and Buyer admitted non-payment, Seller was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.

Attachments: