Ronald B. Stone v. Republic Bank and Trust Company ( 2023 )

RENDERED: JANUARY 20, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2021-CA-0958-MR
RONALD B. STONE; JANE STONE;
RALPH A. JEKEL; AND SHERYL
JEKEL APPELLANTS
APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE AUDRA J. ECKERLE, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 20-CI-007035
REPUBLIC BANK AND TRUST
COMPANY APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: DIXON, LAMBERT, AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.
MCNEILL, JUDGE: Appellants, Ronald Stone and Ralph Jekel, operated a
machinist shop in Jefferson County, Kentucky. They had a line of credit with the
Appellee, Republic Bank and Trust Company (Republic). The line of credit was
changed to a direct loan in 2019. Republic extended the credit in reliance on
Appellants’ Personal Financial Statements (PFS), wherein Appellants disclosed
their assets, including their ownership interests in their respective primary
residences. Appellants defaulted on the loan and Republic filed the underlying suit
as a result. The present issue concerns the transfer, prior to their default, of
Appellants’ interests in their personal residences to their wives, Appellants Sheryl
Jekel and Jane Stone for $1.00 and $10.00.
The specific law at issue here is the Uniform Voidable Transactions
Act (UVTA). See KRS1 378A.040 et. seq. Republic claims that the transfers were
void, fraudulent, and deprived Republic of obtaining the deficiency balance on the
loan. The Jefferson Circuit Court entered summary judgment in favor of Republic.
The court’s order contained eight specific findings under the UVTA. The court
also stated that “[w]hile [Appellants] have not admitted that they harbored any
actual intent to defraud, the intent can clearly be inferred by their actions and the
timing of those actions.” Appellants appealed to this Court as a matter of right.
For the following reasons, we affirm.
A motion for summary judgment should be granted “if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, stipulations, 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 a judgment as a matter of
1
Kentucky Revised Statutes.
-2-
law.” CR2 56.03. “Because no factual issues are involved and only a legal issue is
before the court on the motion for summary judgment, we do not defer to the trial
court and our review is de novo.” Univ. of Louisville v. Sharp, 416 S.W.3d 313,
315 (Ky. App. 2013) (citation omitted).
Appellants raised four specific arguments on appeal: 1) They did not
violate the UVTA; 2) they did not have the actual intent to hinder, delay, or to
defraud the Appellees; 3) Appellee’s motion is premature and should be overruled;
and 4) Appellee’s claim should be dismissed under the doctrine of res judicata.
Having considered the record and the applicable law, Appellants have not
presented any evidence or legal authority that would negate a judgment as a matter
of law in this instance.
And although the parties were involved in previous litigation,
Appellants have also not presented any convincing evidence or authority that
would preclude the present claim under the doctrine of claim preclusion or issue
preclusion. See Constr. Fabrication, LLC v. Republic Bank & Tr. Co., No. 2020-
CA-1610-MR, 2021 WL 5022025, at *3 (Ky. App. Oct. 29, 2021) (“Upon
examination of the four corners of the guaranty documents, it is apparent that Jekel
and Stone guaranteed the February 14, 2019, loan from Republic to Construction
2
Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.
-3-
Fabrication in their individual capacities.”). For the foregoing reasons, we affirm
the circuit court.
LAMBERT, JUDGE, CONCURS.
DIXON, JUDGE, CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:
James W. Dunn Joseph N. Tucker
Louisville, Kentucky Sarah S. Mattingly
Louisville, Kentucky
-4-