RONNY L. STAMPER APPELLANT
v.
COMMUNITY FINANCIAL SERVICES, F/D/B/A BANK OF BENTON APPELLEE
APPEAL
FROM MARSHALL CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE JAMES T. JAMESON, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 16-CI-00023
BRIEFS
FOR APPELLANT: Robert L. Prince Benton, Kentucky
BRIEF
FOR APPELLEE: Stanley K. Spees Paducah, Kentucky
BEFORE: COMBS, JONES, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.
OPINION
JONES,
JUDGE
Appellant,
Ronny L. Stamper, appeals from the Marshall Circuit
Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee,
Community Financial Services (the "Bank"). On
appeal, Stamper asserts that the circuit court should have
denied the Bank's summary judgment because the Bank's
action against him is time-barred. Following review of the
record and applicable law, we reverse the circuit court and
remand with instructions for the circuit court to dismiss the
Bank's civil action against Stamper.
I.
Background
In
April of 1997, Stamper executed a note (the "Note")
and security agreement evidencing a loan by the Bank in the
principal amount of $18, 408.18. Stamper pledged his 1995
Chevrolet Blazer as collateral. The Note had a stated
maturity date of April 25, 2002. The following provision was
included under a heading entitled "Lender's
Rights": "Upon default, then, at the option of
Lender and without notice or demand, this Agreement may be
declared and thereupon immediately will become due and
payable."
In
April 2000, Stamper defaulted on his loan and the Blazer was
repossessed. Following sale of the Blazer, the Bank sent
Stamper a letter on August 25, 2000, which stated in
pertinent part as follows:
Please be advised that the vehicle pledged for security on
your note has been sold to the highest bidder at $2, 190.00.
Therefore, this balance has been applied to your note.
Your balance is now $9, 703.16. This balance must either be
paid in full or have a satisfactory repayment schedule
established by September 15, 2000. Failure to meet this
obligation will result in immediate legal action against you.
When
Stamper did not respond, the Bank sent Stamper a second
letter dated June 5, 2001. This letter again referenced
Stamper's remaining balance on the loan and requested
that Stamper contact the Bank to work out a suitable
repayment plan. The June 5th letter indicated
that, if the Bank did not hear from Stamper, it would turn
over his account to an attorney or a collection agency. There
is nothing indicating that Stamper responded to the June 5,
2001, letter.
On
April 2, 2008, counsel for the Bank also wrote to Stamper. In
this letter, counsel notified Stamper that he must satisfy
the balance on his loan, in full, within thirty days. A
letter dated April 27, 2010, from the Bank to Stamper and his
wife, Kimberly Stamper, indicates that Stamper had expressed
some interest in working out a payment plan on the loan;
however, there is no indication that any payments were ever
made.
The
next communication of record between the parties occurred in
January of 2016, when the Bank brought this suit against
Stamper to collect on Stamper's debt. On March 7, 2016,
the Bank filed a motion for default judgment against Stamper,
as Stamper had failed to respond to the Bank's complaint
in a timely manner. On March 10, 2016, Stamper filed a motion
to file a late answer. In that motion, Stamper stated that
the Bank's claim against him was
time-barred.[1]R. 13. The circuit court granted Stamper
leave to file a later answer on March 22, 2016. In his
answer, which was deemed filed as of March 10, 2016, Stamper
admitted that he had defaulted ...