CLAYTON, JUDGE
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPEAL FROM CHRISTIAN CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE JOHN L. ATKINS, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 10-CI-00960
OPINION
AFFIRMING
BEFORE: CLAYTON, NICKELL, AND THOMPSON, JUDGES. CLAYTON, JUDGE: Cherry West appeals from the decision of the Christian Circuit Court granting summary judgment to Branch Banking and Trust Company (hereinafter "BB&T") on the issue of foreclosure of her home. For the following reasons, we affirm.
This opinion was delayed due to administrative handling.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
West was a customer of BB&T where she held multiple accounts including a mortgage on her home. She defaulted on her mortgage, causing BB&T to seek a foreclosure. Following discovery, the Christian Circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of BB&T. This appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review on a grant of summary judgment by the trial court is whether there were any genuine issues of material fact that were overlooked, and if it was correctly determined that the party moving for summary judgment was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Norton Hospitals, Inc. v. Peyton, 381 S.W.3d 286, 290 (Ky. 2012) (citing Hammons v. Hammons, 327 S.W.3d 444, 448 (Ky. 2010)); Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 56.03. We review this case de novo, because the factual findings are not at issue. Pete v. Anderson, 413 S.W.3d 291, 295 (Ky. 2013) (citing Branham v. Stewart, 307 S.W.3d 94 (Ky. 2010)).
DISCUSSION
In its appellate brief, BB&T urges our court to strike West's brief for not conforming to procedural rules per CR 76.12(4)(c), and in the alternative, to review her brief only for manifest injustice. Well established case law supports BB&T's argument, and we agree. Ray v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 389 S.W.3d 140, 146 (Ky. App. 2012) (quoting Massie v. Persson, 729 S.W.2d 448, 452 (Ky. App. 1987)). West's brief on appeal does not conform to CR 76.12(4)(c) in organization, resulting in a very confusing display of mostly irrelevant arguments. In recognition of her pro se status, however, we opt not to strike the brief, and to review it for manifest injustice. A reversal of the trial court ruling upon a finding of manifest injustice will be granted only if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceeding. Newcomb v. Commonwealth, 410 S.W.3d 63, 79 (Ky. 2013).
Although West argues that there are factual findings at issue, there is nothing on the record to persuade us of this. The affidavit that West relies on (her own) in proving there exist issues of fact has not been either signed or notarized. Further, the record shows that the facts that West presented in her answer and counterclaim do not contradict any of the facts that BB&T presented in its pleading. Instead, West presents facts that are meant to provide justification for her breach of contract with BB&T. These facts do not amount to any recognized legal defense, and are unpersuasive in refuting the legal claim against her. In concluding that there are no supporting issues of fact as to why summary judgment should not have been granted, we see no manifest injustice in the trial court's ruling. The other issues raised on appeal are without merit and do not warrant discussion.
In sum, we conclude that the Christian Circuit Court correctly granted summary judgment to BB&T because there were no genuine issues of material fact, and BB&T was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. For the foregoing reasons, the opinion of the Christian Circuit Court is affirmed.
NICKELL AND THOMPSON, JUDGES, CONCUR IN RESULT ONLY. BRIEF FOR APPELLANT: Cherry West
Princeton, Kentucky
BRIEF FOR APPELLEE: Brian E. Chapman
Cincinnati, Ohio