FSM SUPREME COURT TRIAL DIVISION
Cite as LPP Mortgage Ltd. v. Maras
12 FSM Intrm. 27 (Chk. 2003)

[12 FSM Intrm. 27]

LPP MORTGAGE LTD.,
Plaintiff,
 
vs.
MURAKO MARAS and KEICHIRO DAWE,
Defendants.
 
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2002-1019
 
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
 
Dennis K. Yamase
Associate Justice
 
Decided: August 4, 2003
 
APPEARANCE:
 
For the Defendant:                      Keichiro Dawe, pro se
                                                     P.O. Box 481
                                                     Weno, Chuuk FM 96942
 
* * * *

HEADNOTES

Civil Procedure ) Dismissal
     A case against one defendant will not be dismissed because that defendant will be a witness in the case since a party to a civil action is expected to be a witness in his own case. LPP Mortgage Ltd. v. Maras, 12 FSM Intrm. 27, 27 (Chk. 2003).

Civil Procedure ) Dismissal
     An action against a promissory note’s cosigner is one for which a court can grant relief. LPP Mortgage Ltd. v. Maras, 12 FSM Intrm. 27, 28 (Chk. 2003).

Civil Procedure ) Dismissal; Debtors’ and Creditors’ Rights
     That a promissory note’s co-signer did not receive the loan proceeds, but the other signers did and they spent it, is not a defense to an action on the note or a ground for dismissal of the case against the co-signer. LPP Mortgage Ltd. v. Maras, 12 FSM Intrm. 27, 28 (Chk. 2003).
 
Civil Procedure ) Dismissal
     Defendant co-signer’s allegation that he did not sign the promissory note is not a ground for dismissal but a disputed fact which must be proven at trial. LPP Mortgage Ltd. v. Maras, 12 FSM Intrm. 27, 28 (Chk. 2003).
 
Civil Procedure ) Dismissal; Civil Procedure ) Pleadings
     When a defendant’s motion to dismiss has been denied, he has 10 days within which to file his

[12 FSM Intrm. 28]

answer to the amended complaint. LPP Mortgage Ltd. v. Maras, 12 FSM Intrm. 27, 28 (Chk. 2003).

* * * *

COURT’S OPINION

DENNIS K. YAMASE, Associate Justice:

     On April 21, 2003, defendant Keichiro Dawe filed a Motion to Dismiss in Civil Action No. 2002-1020. Civil Action No. 2002-1020 had been consolidated into Civil Action No. 2002-1019 by court order entered April 3, 2003. Nevertheless, the motion was inadvertently placed in the file for Civil Action No. 2002-1020. Unfortunately, this has caused the court to overlook it until now.

     The defendant raised four grounds for his motion: 1) he alleges he did not sign the promissory note this action is based upon; 2) he did not receive or spend the proceeds of the SBA loan; 3) the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and 4) he will be a witness in the case.

     The motion is denied. A party to a civil action is expected to be a witness in his own case. An action on a promissory note is one for which a court can grant relief. That a person who signed a promissory note with others (that is, a co-signer) did not receive the loan proceeds, but the other signers did and they spent it is not a defense to an action on the note. Whether defendant Dawe signed the note appears to be a genuine issue of fact in dispute ) the plaintiff has filed documents that allegedly show Dawe’s signature and Dawe alleges that he did not sign them ) which must be proven at trial.

     Now therefore it is hereby ordered that defendant Dawe’s motion to dismiss having been denied, he has 10 days within which to file his answer to the amended complaint. FSM Civ. R. 12(a).

* * * *