State v. Tompkins
2011 ND 61
| N.D. | 2011Background
- Bydal and Reimer were co-obligors on two loans to Eduit Corporation (successor to Technology Central); Reimer later paid off the loans and assigned his right to collect to Collection Center.
- Collection Center sued Bydal to collect the debts Reimer assigned; Bydal counterclaimed for punitive damages, and Collection Center denied the allegations.
- Collection Center sought to amend to plead two contribution claims under NDCC § 9-01-08 for amounts Reimer paid and assigned to Center.
- Bydal amended his answer and counterclaim, asserting Reimer breached fiduciary duties as president of the corporations; he did not seek leave to amend.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Collection Center on the contribution claims and struck Bydal’s amended counterclaim; on appeal, the court affirmed, addressing questions about assignment and counterclaims.
- The core issues involve how contribution operates among co-makers/co-guarantors, the effect of the assignment to Collection Center, and whether Bydal’s fiduciary-duty counterclaim could proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there are genuine issues of material fact on contribution under § 9-01-08 | Collection Center: Reimer’s assignment to Center gives Center standing to pursue contribution; both note obligations were co-maker/co-guarantor with equal liability absent proof of deviation. | Bydal: Evidence could show unequal benefits or allocations; genuine issues exist about proportional shares and Stremick’s role. | No genuine issue of material fact; Center entitled to judgment on contribution. |
| Effect of assignment on rights and defenses in contribution | Assignment to Center mirrors Reimer’s rights; Center steps into Reimer’s shoes for contribution claims. | Assignee does not gain broader rights than assignor; defenses against assignor can limit assignee; improper expansion of rights. | Center’s rights limited to Reimer’s contribution claims; no greater rights against Bydal. |
| Whether district court erred in striking Bydal’s amended counterclaim | Court properly struck counterclaim for lack of leave or due to misalignment with amended complaint. | Amended counterclaim was responsive and compulsory/permissive under Rules 13/15; district court erred in striking. | District court erred in requiring leave for amended counterclaim, but affirmed strike on other grounds; potential future action remains possible. |
| Whether Bydal’s counterclaim is compulsory or permissive under Rule 13 in light of amended complaint | Collection Center as assignee not an opposing party for fiduciary-duty claims; counterclaim could be independent action. | Counterclaim arises from same transaction and should be pleaded; opposing party concept should permit counterclaim. | Collection Center is not an opposing party for Rule 13 purposes; strike upheld but rationale changed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barbie v. Minko Constr., Inc., 2009 ND 99 (ND 2009) (summary-judgment standards and standard of review)
- Estate of Egeland, 2007 ND 184 (ND 2007) (disposition of contribution among co-makers; proportional liability)
- Albrecht v. Walter, 1997 ND 238 (ND 1997) (co-guarantor contribution rights and defenses; paying co-guarantor entitled to contribution)
- Arlt v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 61 N.W.2d 429 (ND 1953) (assignee defenses and set-offs against assignor rights)
- Duttenhefner, 1998 ND 53 (ND 1998) (assignment boundaries and defenses against assignee)
- In re Liquidation of the Home Ins. Co., 953 A.2d 443 (NH 2008) (distinguishing absolute assignments vs. collection assignments; fiduciary implications)