MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CARLOS MURGUIA United States District Judge
This is a breach of contract case arising from a promissory note and reamortization agreement executed by defendant Sharon G. Jones in favor of the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”). Plaintiff seeks a monetary judgment, foreclosure of the real estate mortgage securing the promissory note and reamortization agreement, and sale of the real property identified in the mortgage in partial satisfaction of the judgment. This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 23). For the following reasons, the court grants plaintiff’s motion.
I. Factual Background
On March 28, 1989, defendants Sharon G. Jones and Bobby D. Jones signed and delivered to the USDA a promissory note in which they agreed to pay to the USDA the sum of $32, 000 plus interest thereon at 9.75% per annum. In exchange for the promissory note, the USDA made a Rural Housing loan to defendants Sharon G. Jones and Bobby D. Jones. The promissory note is secured by a real estate mortgage filed of record with the Register of Deeds of Cherokee County, Kansas, on March 28, 1989, on the following property:
Commencing at a point 1420 feet East and 25 feet South of the Northwest corner of the Southwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 31 South, Range 24 East of the 6th P.M., thence East 150 feet, thence South 145 feet, thence West 150 feet, thence North to place of beginning.
(Doc. 23-1 at 7.)
On April 21, 1992, plaintiff executed a Release from Personal Liability as to defendant Bobby D. Jones. On August 17, 2000 (effective date July 28, 2000), defendant Sharon G. Jones signed a reamortization agreement wherein the reamortized amount (unpaid principal plus interest) became the principal debt of $30, 049.46 plus interest at 9.75% per annum.
Subsequently, defendant Sharon G. Jones failed to timely pay installments of principal and interest to the USDA when due under the terms of the promissory note, mortgage, and reamortization agreement. The USDA completed the loan servicing requirements of the Housing Act of 1949 as amended. And, on April 6, 2012, the debt owed by defendant Sharon G. Jones was accelerated for failure to make payments as required and demand was made for payment in full.
There is currently due and owing to the USDA on the defaulted account of defendant Sharon G. Jones the total sum of $29, 330.92, as of September 5, 2013, which includes $24, 795.77 unpaid principal and $4, 535.15 of unpaid interest, plus interest accruing from and after September 5, 2013, at the daily rate of $6.3689.
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit on January 17, 2013, and moved for summary judgment on September 24, 2013. Defendants failed to timely respond to plaintiff’s motion. So the court entered a show cause order on October 28, 2013. Defendant Sharon G. Jones timely responded to the show cause order and directed the court to her answer. (Doc. 25.)
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, ...