MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CARLOS MURGUIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This is a breach of contract case arising from an assumption agreement and promissory note executed by defendant Susan Chauvin in favor of the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”). Plaintiff seeks a monetary judgment, foreclosure of the real estate mortgages securing the promissory note and assumption agreement, and sale of the real property identified in the mortgages in partial satisfaction of the judgment.
This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against defendant Chauvin (Doc. 15). Defendant Chauvin opposes the motion, arguing that there is a genuine dispute as to whether the USDA completed the loan servicing requirements of the Housing Act of 1949. For the following reasons, the court grants plaintiff’s motion.
I. Factual Background
On April 10, 1992, defendant Susan Chauvin signed and delivered to the USDA an assumption agreement in which she agreed to assume the entire unpaid indebtedness of $34, 012.80 plus interest at 8.25% per annum due under a promissory note, by Ronald E. Hayes and Debbie A. Hayes. This assumption agreement is secured by a real estate mortgage filed of record with the Register of Deeds of Johnson County, Kansas, on September 18, 1985, on the following property:
Beginning at a point 171 feet West and 100 feet South of the Northeast corner of Block 10, SPRAGUES ADDITION, in the City of Spring Hill, said point being on the easterly right-of-way line of Main Street; thence East 176.96 feet parallel to the North Line of said Block 10; thence Southerly 51.20 feet; thence South 23.89 feet parallel to said right-of-way line of Main Street; thence West 180 feet parallel to the North line of said Block 10; thence North 75 feet to the point of beginning, all in SPRAGUES ADDITION, City of Spring Hill, Johnson County, Kansas, according to the recorded plat thereof.
(Doc. 16-1 at 7.)
Also on April 10, 1992, in consideration for a Rural Housing loan, defendant Chauvin signed and delivered to the USDA a promissory note in which she promised to pay the USDA the sum of $9, 360.00 with interest thereon at 8.25% per annum. This promissory note is secured by a real estate mortgage filed of record with the Register of Deeds of Johnson County, Kansas, on April 10, 1992, on the same property identified above.
Subsequently, defendant Chauvin failed to timely pay to the USDA installments of principal and interest when due under the terms of the assumption agreement and the promissory note. The USDA completed the loan servicing requirements of the Housing Act of 1949 as amended. And, on September 8, 2010, the debt owed by defendant Chauvin to the USDA was accelerated for failure to make payments as required and demand was made for payment in full.
No payment has been received by the USDA. There is currently due and owing to the USDA on the defaulted account of defendant Chauvin the total sum of $40, 884.27, as of June 20, 2013, plus interest accruing from and after June 20, 2013, at the daily rate of $8.250, plus future recoverable advances.
II. Legal Standards
Summary judgment is only appropriate when there are no genuine disputes as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The party seeking summary judgment has the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Sally Beauty Co. v. BeautyCo, Inc., 304 F.3d 964, 971 (10th Cir. 2002). Once the moving party makes this showing, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial. Id.; L & M Enters. v. BEI Sensors & Sys. Co., 231 F.3d 1284, 1287 (10th Cir. 2000) (“Unsupported conclusory allegations . . . do not create a genuine issue of fact.”). In ruling on a summary judgment motion, the court views the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. L & M Enters., 231 F.3d at 1287.
To prevail on its breach of contract claim, plaintiff must prove the existence of a valid contract, an obligation or duty arising out of the contract, a breach of the duty, and damages resulting from the breach. Pryor v. United States, 85 Fed.Cl. 97, 104 (Fed. Cl. 2008); Stechschulte v. Jennings, 298 P.3d 1083, ...