United States District Court, C.D. Illinois
PNC BANK, N.A., successor to National City Bank, successor to National City Bank of Michigan/Illinois, N.A., Plaintiff,
BOHANNAN MEDICAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC., CHERYL BOHANNAN, TOMMY BOHANNAN, Defendants.
ORDER AND OPINION
E. Shadid Chief United States District Judge.
matter is now before the Court on Plaintiff's Renewed
Motion  for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth
below, Plaintiff's Motion  is Granted.
PNC Bank, N.A. (“PNC” or “PNC Bank”),
initiated this action against Defendants Bohannan Medical
Distributors, Inc. (“BMD” or
“Borrower”), and Cheryl and Tommy Bohannan
(“Guarantors”), alleging four counts of breach of
contract arising out of Defendants' default on a
commercial loan and credit card agreement. Count 1 alleges
breach of contract by BMD based upon a commercial loan
evidenced by a promissory note (“Note”) from
Borrower to PNC for the original principal amount of $200,
000. Count 2 alleges breach of contract by BMD arising out of
a business credit card loan agreement (“Credit Card
Agreement”) between Plaintiff and BMD. Counts 3 and 4
state breach of contract claims against Cheryl and Tommy
Bohannan based upon guaranties provided by the Bohannans
promising to pay all amounts due under the Note and Credit
15, 2016, this Court granted in part and denied in part
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. ECF Doc. 32.
Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiff was entitled to
summary judgment in the amount of $188, 714 on the breach of
contract and breach of guaranty claims because BMD defaulted
on the Note and Cheryl and Tommy Bohannan were liable as
guarantors. However, the Court denied summary judgment as it
related to the balance of $29, 733 under Credit Card
Agreement, finding that a material dispute of fact remained
as to whether BMD was in default under the terms of the
Agreement. PNC now renews its motion for summary judgment
against all Defendants.
renewed motions states the following as undisputed material
fact. Plaintiff and BMD entered into a Credit Card Agreement
in 2003. That Agreement was replaced with a new Credit Card
Agreement in 2006, and subsequently amended in 2008 and 2009.
Under the terms of the Credit Card Agreement, a default under
any loan between BMD and Plaintiff, including the Note,
constituted a default under the Credit Card Agreement.
Because BMD defaulted on the Note, it also defaulted on the
Credit Card Agreement. Additionally, BMD defaulted on the
Credit Card Agreement when it failed to pay the June 2015 and
August 2015 statements by the due date. The current balance
on the credit card is $35, 244.20. Tommy and Cheryl Bohannan
both executed guaranties in favor of Plaintiff guaranteeing
payment of all amounts due on the Note and Credit Card
Agreement. The Bohannans have failed to pay the amounts due
under the Note and Credit Card Agreement. ECF Doc. 38, at
dispute that BMD was in default on the Note or the Credit
Card Agreement. Their response alleges that Plaintiff and
Defendants entered into a verbal modification agreement
whereby BMD would remain in good standing on both agreements
if BMD made payments in the amount of $1, 303 on the Note in
addition to making regular payments on the Credit Card
Account. Defendants do not dispute that BMD agreed to be
bound by the terms of the written Credit Card Agreement.
Rule 56, summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on
file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Summary judgment is
mandated “after adequate time for discovery and upon
motion, against a party who fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential
to that party's case, and on which that party will bear
the burden of proof at trial.” Id. at 322-23.
However, “[t]he burden on the non-movant is not
onerous.” Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp.,
24 F.3d 918, 921 (7th Cir. 1994). Rather, the non-movant
“need only come forward with appropriate evidence
demonstrating that there is a pending dispute of material
fact” and “may rely on affidavits or any other
materials of the kind identified in Rule 56(c).”
primary argument in response to PNC's motion for summary
judgment relates to a purported verbal agreement between PNC
and Defendants. See E.C.F. Doc. 24, at 2. Specifically,
Defendants' response states:
While the representative was speaking with Mr. Bohannan, it
was evident that she was reviewing materials which allowed
her to communicate approval of the $1, 303.00 payment amount.
However, Defendants do not currenlty [sic] possess those
E.C.F. Doc. 23, at 2.
Illinois law, a credit agreement is defined as “an
agreement or commitment by a creditor to lend money or extend
credit or delay or forbear repayment of money not primarily
for personal, family or household purposes, and not in
connection with the issuance of credit cards.” 815 ...