District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Paul and Sheryl Puma, Appellants v. Ann Sullivan, Appellee
February 24, 20002000 D.C. App. LEXIS 46
Summary
The court reversed summary judgment because admissible evidence created a genuine dispute over whether the promissory note's maturity date was orally extended until the marital home was transferred. The alleged oral offer was non-hearsay because it was offered to prove the making of a verbal act, not the truth of an asserted fact, and therefore could be considered on summary judgment. The court remanded for trial on when the breach occurred and whether the action was timely.
Holding
- Oral modification and accrual of the limitations period. The Pumas' evidence created a genuine issue of material fact about whether Ewoldt orally modified the note to make the debt due when the home was sold or transferred. If that modification occurred, the breach may have occurred on June 8, 1996, making the 1997 action timely.
- Admissibility of Ewoldt's alleged oral offer. Mr. Puma's recitation of Ewoldt's alleged offer to extend the note's due date was admissible non-hearsay and could be considered on summary judgment.
- Propriety of summary judgment. Summary judgment was improper because admissible evidence on both sides created a genuine dispute over when the note became due and when the breach occurred.
Docket 97-CV-1479
Cited authorities
- Rule 801(c)
- D.C. Code § 30-201
- D.C. Code § 30-201
- D.C. Code § 12-301
- D.C. Code § 30-201
- D.C. Code § 14-306
Cited by
- Echo Acceptance Corp., a Colorado Corporation and Echosphere Corporation, a Colorado Corporation…
- In Re TY.B. and in Re Ti.B.; T.B., Appellant
- ND v. Ochsner Clinic, LLC
- Daniel Deutsch, Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Stephen Barsky, Appellee/cross-Appellant
- Milton Cox, Appellant v. United States, Appellee
- Jody Deramus, Appellant v. Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, Appellees
- Kelvin L. Martin, Appellant v. United States, Appellee
- Audrick Payne, Appellant v. William Clark, Appellees