The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing a multi-million dollar action and seeking judgment on two promissory notes totalling $1.25 million.
The court held that a broadly worded release executed in November 2009 barred most of the plaintiffs’ claims, particularly in light of admissions that the parties had a “clean slate.” However, the enforceability of the two promissory notes raised genuine issues requiring a trial because the surrounding documentation was inconsistent and some documents were admittedly fabricated.
After conducting a mini‑trial under Rule 20.04(2.2), the court concluded that a full appreciation of the evidence regarding the promissory notes could not be achieved on a summary judgment record.
Most of the plaintiffs’ action was dismissed, but the counterclaim relating to the promissory notes was directed to trial.