Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Krog, Paul J

Titel

TWB Architects, Inc. v. Braxton, L.L.C.: The Unchanging Rule for Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Motions

Ist Teil von

• The University of Memphis law review, 2021-01, Vol.51 (1), p.1-17

Ort / Verlag

Memphis: University of Memphis

Erscheinungsjahr

2021

Quelle

Nexis Uni

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Braxton, L.L.C. hired TWB Architects ("TWB") to design a condo development.8 The condo project ran out of money, and TWB's owner agreed to accept a condo unit as payment.9 But the construction lender foreclosed a superior lien and wound up owning all the condo units, leaving TWB both unpaid and condo-less.10 Left empty handed, TWB sued for its fee, and in response, Braxton asserted (primarily but not exclusively) that the agreement to convey the condo unit to TWB's owner constituted a novation of the fee agreement.11 Initially, the trial court agreed and entered summary judgment on that defense, but the court of appeals reversed.12 TWB moved for summary judgment itself on remand.13 The trial court granted that motion as well, both dismissing Braxton's affirmative defenses and entering judgment on TWB's own claims.14 Braxton appealed.15 A. TWB Architects, Inc. v. Braxton, L.L.C. in the Court of Appeals The court of appeals viewed the key issue as whether Braxton's affirmative defenses survived summary judgment.16 It correctly recited the standard governing summary judgment motions brought by a party not bearing the burden of proof on the claim or defense targeted by the motion: A moving party who does not bear the burden of proof at trial "may satisfy its burden of production either (1) by affirmatively negating an essential element of the nonmoving party's claim or (2) by demonstrating that the nonmoving party's evidence at the summary judgment stage is insufficient to establish the nonmoving party's claim or defense. "18 But the court of appeals also included a footnote in its introductory section on the standard of review, stating: [I]n cases where the moving party bears the burden of proof at trial, the burden-shifting analysis at the summary judgment phase differs from that set out above. [...]a plaintiff who files a motion for partial summary judgment on an element of his or her claim shifts the burden by alleging undisputed facts that show the existence of that element and entitle the plaintiff to summary judgment as a matter of law." [...]BTW's motion for summary judgment focuses solely upon The Braxton's defenses, issues for which The Braxton bore the burden of proof at trial. [...]the burden-shifting analysis should be that for a party who does not bear the burden of proof at trial, as discussed in. [...]the Rye summary judgment standard applies whether the moving party is a plaintiff or a defendant and without regard to which party has the burden of proof at trial.24 The Court's language purports to be a clarification of the summary judgment standard.