Kent H. Landsberg Co. v. Freeman
Kent H. Landsberg Company (KHL) negotiated the settlement of an existing debt owed by ice cream manufacturer Mollicoolz and its president, Bryan Freeman. One term of the written settlement agreement and corresponding promissory note required Mollicoolz and Freeman, “as an individual,†to pay $45,000 on or before May 20, 2009. When the sum was not paid, KHL sued Mollicoolz and Freeman on four alternative causes of action: breach of contract, breach of promissory note, account stated, and money had and received. After KHL obtained a default judgment against Mollicoolz, KHL brought the instant motion for summary judgment (or, alternatively, for summary adjudication) against Freeman on all causes of action. The trial court granted KHL’s motion for summary judgment.
In this appeal, Freeman contends KHL was not entitled to summary adjudication on any of the four causes of action because he has a valid defense to KHL’s claim to the $45,000 sum: that the money was never owed. Additionally, because Freeman disputed ever receiving any money from KHL, Freeman argues summary judgment should not have been granted on KHL’s claim for money had and received. Finally, Freeman argues, summary adjudication on all causes of action should have been denied because KHL’s damages against Freeman could not be proved with certainty, inasmuch as its damages claim included attorney fees attributable to obtaining a default judgment against the other defendant, Mollicoolz.
Although we agree that the undisputed facts do not show that KHL is entitled to summary adjudication of its common count claims for account stated and money had and received, it was entitled to judgment in the amount of $45,000 plus interest, late fees, and attorney fees and costs, based on its breach of contract and breach of promissory note causes of action. Accordingly, we shall affirm the judgment.
Comments on Kent H. Landsberg Co. v. Freeman