![]() ![]() The trial judge must examine the evidence, not to decide any issue of fact, but to discover if a real issue exists. 3- judgment if there is any issue of material fact. Even though a trial court may believe the party opposing the motion may not succeed at trial, it should not render a summary 2 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure. The record must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion for summary judgment and all doubts are to be resolved in his favor. this Court has also repeatedly admonished that the rule is to be cautiously applied. Scansteel Service Center, Inc.: While it has been recognized that summary judgment is designed to expedite the disposition of cases and avoid unnecessary trials when no genuine issues of material fact are raised. The Kentucky Supreme Court further explained this summary judgment standard in Steelvest, Inc. STANDARD OF REVIEW 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 law.” CR2 56.03. Having considered the record and the law, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin Circuit Court. Salviola now appeals to this Court as a matter of right. On October 2, 2019, the court entered an Amended Summary Judgment in the Cabinet’s favor and awarded it fines and penalties totaling $1,420,460.00. Due to a clerical error in the monetary amount set out in the court’s order granting summary judgement, the Cabinet filed a motion to correct the error, which the court granted. The Cabinet subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment which, after a hearing on the -2- matter, was granted by the trial court. On November 27, 2018, Salviola was served with the Cabinet’s complaint, to which she filed an answer. On November 19, 2018, the court set aside default judgment against Salviola and sustained the default judgment against Viking. The trial court subsequently entered a default judgment against both. On June 14, 2018, the Cabinet filed suit in the Franklin Circuit Court against Viking and Salviola seeking enforcement of over one million dollars in fines and fees. Salviola was not named as a party in any of the administrative cases. There is no indication that Viking responded to these charges or the final administrative orders resulting therefrom. These were all the result of administrative hearings held by the Cabinet. Because these attempted permit transfers occurred without the Cabinet’s approval pursuant to KRS Chapter 350, between 2014-2018, forty-six final orders were issued by the Cabinet against Appellant attempting to rectify numerous regulatory violations. Attendant to the transfer of Viking were several attempted transfers of its mining permits. Thereafter, she transferred her ownership interest in Viking to a successor entity, Mine Investments, LLC, a subsidiary of NewLead Holdings. On November 1, 2012, Salviola went from being an 80% shareholder of Viking to being the 100% shareholder. Appellee in the present case is the Commonwealth of Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet (hereafter “Cabinet”). Salviola was the sole manager of 1 Kentucky Revised Statutes. Viking was a corporate entity holding surface coal mining permits issued pursuant to KRS1 Chapter 350. McNEILL, JUDGE: This case involves numerous regulatory violations by Appellant, Perian Salviola (hereafter “Salviola”), and Viking Acquisition Group (hereafter “Viking”). 18-CI-00611 COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT CABINET APPELLEE OPINION AFFIRMING ** ** ** ** ** BEFORE: CALDWELL, McNEILL, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES. APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE PHILLIP J. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |