Can you avoid summary judgment by simply stating you did nothing wrong?
That was the move by Michael Melton in Charles Melton, Individually and as Personal Representative for the Estate of Betty Ruth Shaw Morgan v. Michael Melton, No. E2023-00649-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 27, 2023). Acting under a power of attorney for his mother, he drained funds from her bank accounts and spent them for his benefit. His brother Charles attacked the efforts, and filed a motion for summary judgment on liability.
Charles submitted a statement of undisputed material facts in support of his motion. Michael agreed to the statements of fact, but in response filed a statement of additional undisputed material facts which he said created as issue for trial. This was the “fact:”
“As the power of attorney for Betty Ruth Shaw Morgan, Michael Melton at all times acted with the utmost good faith, honesty, and loyalty to his mother, Betty Ruth Shaw Morgan.
Id. at *9.
The trial judge saw through the effort and granted summary judgment, saying
[Michael] . . . argues that there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute. Specifically, [Michael] disputes that he misused his authority under the Power of Attorney or breached his fiduciary duties under the same and that those actions do not constitute conversion. The Court notes that these are legal conclusions and not disputed facts that would defeat a motion for summary judgment.
. . . .
. . . . The Court is left with [Charles’s] Statement of Undisputed Material Facts to which [Michael] admitted in its entirety. In that Statement, Decedent executed a Power of Attorney in favor of [Michael]. Under authority of that Power of Attorney, [Michael] drained the bank account of Decedent and used the funds to buy himself multiple vehicles and a recreational vehicle. [Michael] also caused cashier checks to be issued to himself and
[Charles]. . . .
. . . .
The type of self-dealing as exhibited by [Michael] is a classic example of a breach of fiduciary duty. Not only did [Michael] drain Decedent’s bank accounts, [Michael] did not use any of that money for Decedent’s benefit. The sole fact in the record before the Court that shows that [Michael] acted in the benefit of the Decedent in his actions under the Power of Attorney is the paying of one of Decedent’s bill. This bill was paid for by the very little
funds left in one of Decedent’s bank account. The other actions all exhibit a lack of good faith towards Decedent’s property. The Court finds that [Michael] breached his fiduciary duties in his self-dealing with Decedent’s property.
Id.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, noting that Michael’s effort to create a genuine issue for trial must fail because “‘[m]ere conclusory statements are insufficient to create a dispute of fact when the moving party presents specific facts sufficient to support a motion for summary judgment.’” Id. (citations omitted).
Here is a paper from Syracuse University School of Law that can help you distinguish between conclusory statements and true statements of fact. The paper is designed to help law students write better examination answers, but will also help a practicing lawyer avoid conclusory statements in drafting statements of undisputed fact.