414 F. App'x 112
10th Cir.2011Background
- West Ridge Group, LLC sued Neill H. Taylor, Roger Crouch, First Trust Company of Onaga, and Morrill and Janes Bank and Trust in Colorado state court for real estate-related claims including RESPA; defendants removed to federal court based on RESPA jurisdiction.
- The deed of trust encumbered a 160-acre Delta County property with Parcel C (about 40 acres) at issue for a potential partial release upon payment.
- Plaintiff proposed paying one-fourth of the outstanding debt to release Parcel C; defendants calculated a higher pro-rata amount based on appraised values and released Parcel C after escrow withdrawals.
- Farm Credit Services later provided a loan requiring Parcel C as a first mortgage, prompting Plaintiff to pursue a release as to Parcel C under paragraph 7 of the note.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the Bank Defendants on all claims and to Crouch and Taylor on all claims except breach of contract; after a bench trial, the court ruled for Crouch and Taylor on the breach claim; Plaintiff appeals.
- The panel ultimately affirmed the district court’s rulings, including the contract interpretation and dismissal of other theories; the court declined to award attorney’s fees to Plaintiff on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury trial denial appropriate under Rule 39(b)? | West Ridge argues it timely demanded a jury. | Court properly denied belated jury demand as waived and change of strategy. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Admissibility of Cisler affidavit influencing summary judgment? | Cisler affidavit supported Plaintiff’s position on paragraph 7. | Affidavit contained hearsay/generalities; properly struck. | Affidavit properly struck; no reversible error. |
| Negligence and punitive damages under Colorado law? | There existed an independent duty and could support tort/punitive claims. | No independent duty; economic loss rule bars tort claims; punitive damages not shown. | District court correct to grant summary judgment on negligence and punitive damages. |
| RESPA applicability to this commercial real estate transaction? | RESPA should apply as the dispute concerns real estate settlement practices. | RESPA inapplicable to commercial transactions; not merits-based here. | RESPA not applicable; affirmed. |
| Contract interpretation of paragraph 7 (pro rata release) and breach? | Paragraph 7 unambiguously requires dollars-for-acres release structure; breach if Parcel C released for proportionate payment. | Pro rata refers to value-based ratio, not acres; no breach under the note. | Court rejected dollars-for-acres interpretation; pro rata based on value; no breach by Defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dill v. City of Edmond, 155 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 1998) (Rule 39(b) denial proper for inadvertence or strategic delay; waiver not abuse of discretion)
- Nissan Motor Corp v. Burciaga, 982 F.2d 408 (10th Cir. 1992) (Discretion to grant Rule 39(b) relief; not compelled by mere inadvertence)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Mhoon, 31 F.3d 979 (10th Cir. 1994) (Appellate review of evidentiary rulings; adverse party must show error)
- Quad Constr., Inc. v. Wm. A. Smith Contracting Co., 534 F.2d 1391 (10th Cir. 1976) (Contra proferentem and ambiguity resolution; look to intent of parties)
- Patterson v. Gage, 16 P. 560 (Colo. 1888) (Antecedent rule on interpreting ambiguous instruments)