Annette J. Painter, Plaintiff Below, Appellant v. Patrick Devolta Peavy, Defendant Below, Appellee

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed a summary judgment holding that a plaintiff's deposit of a $750 insurance check tendered 'for full settlement of all claims' effected an accord and satisfaction of her automobile-injury claim despite her 'deposited under protest' endorsement, because a creditor of an unliquidated claim must either accept or reject a conditional payment-in-full offer and may not unilaterally modify it. The court rejected the plaintiff's waiver theory, finding no evidence of the mutual consent required to rescind a completed accord and satisfaction, and determined in a footnote that the UCC's reservation-of-rights provisions would not have changed the result. A footnote also modified prior messaging on Rule 56, requiring a nonmoving party to come forward with affirmative evidence once a mature, properly documented summary judgment motion leaves no room for controversy. No separate opinions were filed.