In the case of Zmenak v. LCM, a Loan Agreement had been involved, and the plaintiff, Emil Zmenak, had sought repayment of a loan agreement that had been signed on March 25, 2021, and amounted to $250,000. The defendant, LCM Distribution Service Inc. (LCM), had disputed the claim, arguing that the terms and parties involved in the loan agreement had been in dispute. Emile Zmenak, who had been the plaintiff's son and the principal of Urbania, and his common-law spouse, Jingxin "Cici" Zhou, had also been involved in the case. The loan agreement between Emil Zmenak and LCM had been intended to provide financing for a wood flooring partnership between LCM and Urbania. However, a dispute had arisen when LCM had diverted wood products, which had been meant to secure the loan, into the hands of Emile and Zhou. The plaintiff had argued that the loan agreement's terms had been clear and precise and that there had been no genuine issue for trial. In contrast, the defendant had contended that there had been credibility issues and had opposed the motion for summary judgment. Ultimately, the court had ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that there had been a genuine issue requiring a trial. The judgment had also outlined procedures for handling costs if the parties could not agree on them.