Naya Calhoun v. CarMax Business Services, LLC

Summary

This Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation addresses CarMax Business Services, LLC’s motions for partial summary judgment and default judgment, and Naya Calhoun’s Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. It recommends granting summary judgment to CarMax on Calhoun’s accord-and-satisfaction, Uniform Commercial Code, and Truth in Lending Act claims; granting default judgment against Proofs Learning Academy LLC; and denying Calhoun’s motion. The report also recommends awarding CarMax $60,577.32 on its counterclaim while declining to recommend attorney’s fees without additional evidence.

Holdings

1. Calhoun could not establish accord and satisfaction because she failed to show a disputed claim and mutual consent by CarMax to accept the money orders as full satisfaction of the debt.
2. CarMax was entitled to summary judgment on Calhoun's UCC § 9-210 claim because the request was premised on the rejected accord-and-satisfaction theory and Calhoun failed to show that CarMax acted without reasonable cause or that she was reasonably misled.
3. CarMax was entitled to summary judgment on the Truth in Lending Act claim because Calhoun misidentified the total of payments as the finance charge, and no disclosure violation was apparent on the face of the assigned disclosure statement.
4. CarMax was entitled to summary judgment on its counterclaim because the undisputed evidence established the contract, Calhoun's default, and an outstanding balance of $60,577.32; CarMax was also entitled to recognition of its security interest.
5. Default judgment was appropriate against Proofs Learning Academy LLC because it failed to answer or otherwise defend after service, the default was not attributable to excusable neglect, and the pleadings and record provided a sufficient basis for judgment.
6. Calhoun was not entitled to judgment on the pleadings because her motion relied on the same accord-and-satisfaction theory that had been rejected, and no viable claim remained on which judgment could be entered in her favor.

Questions Presented

1. Whether CarMax was entitled to summary judgment on Calhoun's claim that the debt was discharged through accord and satisfaction.
2. Whether CarMax was entitled to summary judgment on Calhoun's claim under UCC § 9-210 concerning a request for a statement of account.
3. Whether CarMax was entitled to summary judgment on Calhoun's Truth in Lending Act claim alleging that the finance charge was incorrectly disclosed.
4. Whether CarMax was entitled to summary judgment on its counterclaim for the unpaid contract balance and recognition of its security interest.
5. Whether default judgment should be entered against third-party defendant Proofs Learning Academy LLC.
6. Whether Calhoun was entitled to judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c).

Disposition

other