Richison v. Ernest Group, Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4976
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Richison sued in 2009 alleging conversion, civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty related to his former shares in Ernest Group, Inc. (EGI).
- In January 2000 Richison resigned from all positions and forfeited ownership of 125 shares; EGI stopped treating him as officer/director/shareholder and reissued the shares.
- Richison stopped reporting ownership in tax filings by 2001 and left EGI entirely; he later asked not to be listed as officer/shareholder.
- In 2002 EGI’s president sought written confirmation of the 2000 transfer; Richison refused; in 2007 an accountant allegedly pressured him to sign a transfer confirmation.
- Richison contends the 2007 signing was a misled act enabling a sale, while defendants argued the shares were taken in 2000, not 2007.
- The district court granted summary judgment holding the claims time-barred under Oklahoma’s statutes of limitation; Richison appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When did Richison's tort claims accrue under Oklahoma law? | Richison contends accrual occurred in 2007. | Accrual occurred in 2000 when shares were forfeited. | Accrual in 2000; time-barred. |
| May Richison raise a new legal theory on appeal? | New theory valid for reversal if plain error. | New theory not raised below; waived/forfeited; plain error required. | New theory reviewed under plain error; forfeited theory not ground for reversal absent plain error. |
| Is plain error review available for a newly raised theory in civil cases? | Plain error not required for purely legal theory. | Plain error standard applies; must show four elements. | Plain error standard applies to forfeited/new theories in civil cases. |
| Did Richison preserve the alternative value-of-the-claim theory for appellate review? | Theory should be considered on appeal. | Theory not raised below; waived/forfeited; not reviewed without plain error. | Theory not preserved; rejected absent plain error showing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Consolidated Grain & Barge Co. v. Structural Systems, Inc., 212 P.3d 1168 (Okla. 2009) (accrual under Oklahoma law follows when claim first can be maintained)
- Daugherty v. Farmers Coop. Ass'n, 689 P.2d 947 (Okla. 1984) (discovery rule tolling requires information leading to true condition)
- Petrini v. Howard, 918 F.2d 1482 (10th Cir. 1990) (plain error standard for newly raised legal arguments)
- Bartlett-Collins Co. v. Surinam Nav. Co., 381 F.2d 546 (10th Cir. 1967) (plain error/miscarriage of justice framework)
- Gomes v. Williams, 420 F.2d 1364 (10th Cir. 1970) (plain error concept in appellate review)
- Stahmann Farms, Inc. v. United States, 624 F.2d 958 (10th Cir. 1980) (plain error review elements discussed)
- Hicks v. Gates Rubber Co., 928 F.2d 966 (10th Cir. 1991) (guidance on plain error standard)
- United States v. 9844 South Titan Court, 75 F.3d 1470 (10th Cir. 1996) (application of plain error analysis)
- Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106 (Supreme Court 1976) (waiver vs forfeiture concept in issues not raised below)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (Supreme Court 1993) (plain error standard framework)