United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
P. JORDAN, III CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Alan Crancer seeks summary judgment  on Defendant Hope
Poole's counterclaim. For the reasons that follow,
Crancer's motion is granted.
case concerns flood damage to Crancer's house that
occurred after Poole signed a contingent contract to purchase
the home. The water service to the home had been disconnected
at some point, but Poole needed it turned back on for the
home inspection. Poole contacted Defendant Bear Creek Water
Association ("Bear Creek") to restore the service,
and, predictably, the house flooded. Poole then withdrew her
offer to purchase citing "a foundation issue with the
house." Poole Dep. [50-2] at 27.
on these events, Crancer sued both Bear Creek and Poole.
Compl. . Poole then responded with an Answer/Counterclaim
against Crancer, saying his negligence and breach of contract
prevented her from purchasing the house. Answer/Countercl.
 ¶¶ 7-10. Crancer now seeks summary judgment
regarding the counterclaim. Pl.'s Mot. . The issues
have been briefed, and the Court has subject-matter and
judgment is warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
56(a) when evidence reveals no genuine dispute regarding any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. The rule "mandates the
entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery
and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing
sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential
to that party's case, and on which that party will bear
the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).
threshold matter, the parties' summary-judgment briefs
offer conflicting views of Poole's counterclaim. Poole
pleaded her claims as follows:
5. Pursuant to said "RISK OF LOSS" provision,
Crancer specifically assumed the risk of any loss to the
Property occurring prior to any closing under said Contract
and had a duty to Poole to secure and maintain, at all times
prior to closing, proper insurance against fire and extended
6. Said Contract, under the provision entitled "PROPERTY
CONDITION, INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF PROPERTY, "
contained Crancer's promise and obligation to deliver
the Property in good repair at the time of closing.
Crancer owed to Poole a duty to deliver said Property to
Poole at closing, together with all improvements, in as good
a condition at closing as they were on April 1, 2016, being
the effective date of the Contract.
7. Crancer negligently or willfully failed to perform his
obligations under said Contract.
8. Crancer negligently or willfully permitted or caused the
Property to suffer water damage on ...