269 P.3d 36
Okla. Civ. App.2011Background
- MTG Guarnieri Manufacturing, Inc. and Guarnieri appeal after summary judgment favored Siemens on lease and guaranty, and Carter on third-party claims.
- On July 1, 2008, MTG leased a Hass hollow spindle lathe from MFS (Siemens' predecessor); Guarnieri unconditionally guaranteed the lease.
- MFS assigned its lease and guaranty rights to Siemens after default; MTG and Guarnieri surrendered the equipment in June 2009.
- The surrender agreement stated Siemens could sell or dispose of the equipment, reserved all rights, and did not waive the outstanding balance or guaranty.
- Siemens filed suit August 12, 2009 for damages; MTG and Guarnieri asserted defenses and counterclaims; Carter was sued as a third-party defendant.
- Trial court granted Siemens summary judgment on its claims and on counterclaims, and granted Carter partial summary judgment on third-party claims; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of error on summary judgment | Siemens contends first assignment is insufficient to preserve error. | Guarnieri argues there were material disputed facts precluding summary judgment. | First assignment not sufficient to preserve error. |
| Application of California/New Jersey law | Siemens asserts proper choice-of-law rules were applied and cited those laws. | Guarnieri claims the court failed to apply relevant state law to the facts. | Court found no failure to apply proper California/New Jersey law. |
| Affirmance of Siemens' summary judgment and Carter's | Siemens contends there were no genuine issues of material fact; judgment proper. | Guarnieri asserts ongoing disputes on liability and damages and duty to mitigate. | Trial court's judgments for Siemens and Carter affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Booker v. Sumner, 2001 OK CIV APP 22, 19 P.3d 904 (OK Civil App. 2001) (shotgun pleadings insufficient to preserve error)
- Kirschstein v. Haynes, 1990 OK 8, 788 P.2d 941 (OK Supreme Court 1990) (rejects broad 'substantial controversy' language as error preservation)
- Markwell v. Whinery's Real Estate, Inc., 1994 OK 24, 869 P.2d 840 (OK Supreme Court 1994) (clarifies when general error claims may be preserved by summary)
- Cranford v. Bartlett, 2001 OK 47, 25 P.3d 918 (OK Supreme Court 2001) (strictly states de novo review for summary judgment via legal question)