*2
еntered into a series of loan transactions
ARNOLD,
Before RICHARD S.
Chief
with various Texas banks. As collateral
McMILLIAN,
Judge,
Judge,
Circuit
loans,
for these
the Mutzes executed sever-
WELLFORD,* Senior
Judge.
Circuit
al deeds of
assignments
trust and
pro-
of
covering
duction
ARNOLD,
their
proper-
RICHARD
investment
Judge.
S.
Chief
ties.
assignments
Included
these
were
negotiated
case arises out of the
prоduced
two
leases
the disputed
settlement of a loan between Austin and
this case: the “Ed Ford” leases
Alice Mutz and Citizens State Bank of Ma-
and the “Double M Ranch” lease.
ryville. After the loan had been settled
executed,
and a release
1980s,
the Bank endorsed
In the early
drop
as a result of the
and deposited into
market,
its account
two checks
the oil
the Citizens National
made payable
Abilene,
to the Mutzes from Pride
Bank
the bank which
held
Pipeline Company,
gas producer
loan,
an oil and
encouraged
Mutzes’
Mutzes
leasing
which was
land owned
refinance
their
loan elsewhere. The
$114,181.06.
in the amount of
approached
Citizens
State Bank
Mutzes filed suit
alleging Maryville
purpose.
Thе
for
Bank
that this action
violated the terms of the
to refinance their loan if the Mutzes
signed
mutual release
parties.
obtained a guarantor. This was accom-
any wrongdoing
denied
plished
asserted
when Mr. Mutz’s sister and brother-
the mutual
(the Fosters)
release as an affirmative de-
in-law
allowed their
farm
claims,
plaintiffs’
fense
arguing
security
be used as
for the lоan. The
permitted
$1,304,-
actions
under the terms Mutzes then executed a note for
Wellford,
Harry
by designation.
* The
W.
Hon.
Senior
Circuit,
Judge
sitting
States Circuit
for the Sixth
leases,
addition,
in the realization
resulted
April of 1982.
677.33
assignments
new
the Bank on the Mutzes’
executed
Mutzes
security
provided, as
Bank which
oil,
loan,
“proceeds
sale of
settlement,
complete the loan
To
proper-
minerals” from the
gas[,] and other
*3
Fosters,
the
and the Bank entered
Appendix
subject to the deed of trust.
ty
re-
a mutual release.
Bank was
into
also covered the
assignments
These
any
from
claims:
leased
the “Double M
Ford” leases and
“Ed
relating
or connected with
any way
to
lease.
Ranch”
“Loan”)
(the
by the Bank to
a
made
loаn
arrangement between
This
guaranteed
and
the
the Borrowers
proceeded smoothly for a few
the Bank
and
Guaranty
pursuant
to a
Guarantors
As the oil market worsened
months.
any
Agreement
April
1982 or
dated
1983, however,
unable to
the Mutzes were
thereof, or
extensions or modifications
repayment
sched-
meet the established
by any party
any dоcuments executed
renegotiated
Although the loan was
ule.1
any
in connection therewith or
hereto
times,
im-
did not
the situation
several
by the Bank in
collection efforts taken
however,
had,
reduced
prove.
therewith.
connection
$600,000.
approximately
On
the note to
part,
1, 1987,
Appendix 299. For their
August
Mutzes and the Bank
the
In-
Mutzes
the Fos-
“Agreement Resрecting
agreed to release the
and
entered into an
agreement,
the
Under this
ters from:
debtedness.”
assigned
right
to
Mutzes
to
actions,
any and all manner of
causes of
used to secure their loan.
sell the collateral
suits,
action,
damages
proceedings,
what-
return,
agreed
attempt
not to
equity
any way
or in
soever
law
the note from the
further collection on
the Loan
relating to or connected with
solely
The Bank would look
to the
Mutzes.
by the Bank to the Borrowers and
made
Ap-
repayment.
further
Fosters
pursuant
guaranteed by the Guarantors
Assignments given to the
pendix 268.
April
Guaranty Agreement
dated
to
Bank, however,
“any
did cover
and all
or modifications
1982 or
extensions
in the
de-
interеsts
above
[the Mutzes’]
thereof,
executed
any documents
or
Leases_”
scribed
any party hereto in connection therewith.
option
selling
exploring
After
Appendix 299.
collateral, the Bank decided to hold onto
July
more than a month
On
interests. The Bank val-
these oil
signed,
release was
after the mutual
$120,000.
at
The Bank
ued these leases
Pipe-
сhecks from Pride
Bank received two
negotiations
the Fos-
then entered into
with
op-
gas producer
Company,
line
an oil
the remainder of the Mutzes’
ters to settle
property
covered
erating
some of the
on
convey
to
The Fosters
account.
$114,-
leases, in the amount of
the Mutz
the Bank in return for full
their farm to
checks,
made
which were
181.06.
lоan,
of the Mutz
a return of
settlement
Mutzes, represented funds
payable to
Fosters,
$100,000
payment
and a
to the
September of 1980
earned between
of a maximum of
the Fosters
The Bank endorsed
January of 1986.2
eventually sold the
legal fees. The Bank
stamp
previously
it had
these checks with
$780,000,
greater
an amount
than
farm for
payable
to endorse
Mutz
used
remaining
of the
balance
directly into the
amount,
deposited
them
coupled
the value of the Mutzes
market,
proceeds. The
penses
on the
worsening
and income taxes
to the
of the
1. Prior
royalty payments
repayment
remaining
handled in this
was
of the loan was
fash-
of the
balance
Royalty checks were sent to the Mutzes in
ion:
care of the Bank.
applied
Mutzes’ loan.
then
agreement
Under an
with the
Bank,
deposited
into the
these checks
holding
apparently
2. Pride
had
personal account at the
with cer-
Mutzes’
"suspense
await-
account” while
in a
being
for the Mutzes'
amounts
transferred
tain
personal
payee was to be.
on who the
instructions
needs,
drilling
cover
еx-
as well as to
Inc.,
way,
F.Supp. 964,
(E.D.Mo.
tell
account. The Bank did not
Bank’s own
1988),
(8th Cir.1989).
the time.
aff'd,
Mutzes about the checks at
II. ages, claims and demands whatsoever equity any way relating or in law to or deciding summary a motion for loan,” equally connected it is [the] judgment, plain language “the of Rule promise true that the Bank made the same 56(c)” entry judgment requires the addition, Agreement to the Mutzes. In dispute any genuine no as to issue there is Respecting protected Indebtedness Catrett, Corp. of material fact. Celotex “any against Mutzes from additional action 322, 477 U.S. 106 S.Ct. payment to seek or satisfaction of (1986). [them] In order for there to L.Ed.2d 265 any the debt evidenced the Note or seek fact,” “genuine a issue of material deficiency against sale of should the [them] evidence must be “such that reasonable receipt by thе collateral ... result in jury return a verdict for the nonmov- proceeds in an amount less Bank of net ing party.” Liberty Lobby, Anderson v. outstanding than the balance due on the Inc., 477 U.S. S.Ct. resolving Appendix Note.” (1986). In present L.Ed.2d 202 dispute, decided that the the District Court case, summary the District Court held that mutual, protected the Bank in a release appropriate judgment wаs because the this, past where situation such as governed by the mutu- Mutzes’ claims were gas profits from oil and were forwarded Because that document re- al release. the execution of the Mutzes on a date after from and all leased the Bank claims disagree, arguing the release. arising from the have had endorsing depositing these transaction, reasoned that the Court checks, further collection took checks, represented money which them, against actions which violat- actions the Mutzes’ leases between earned from Respecting Agreement Indebted- ed rightfully were the Bank’s. ness. appealed, asserting that The Mutzes have inappropriate summary judgment is be- pоsitions indicate a need divergent are issues of material fact cause there position may indeed The Bank’s for trial. to be resolved. which need does seem The mutual release be correct. liability to. the from summary to absolve it In order to determine whether re- actions taken with for further appropriate, we must focus Mutzes judgment was аrgues, the As the Bank gard to this loan. on the mutual release. Un- our attention dispute were gave rise to this law, construing a re- checks which Missouri when der properties production on lease, of oil is con- the result “the intention of Bank as assigned to the have been Speed- trolling.” Haines v. St. Charles case; thus, Thus, in this there situation we have for the part of the collateral questions of material fact concern- represent remain analysis, these under this contemplating at what the the Bank under belonging to funds the release was executed. the time release. terms of the However, interpretation of evidence, There is sufficient to cre equally plausible. The these documents faсt, genuine issue of that the ate a Indebtedness, a Respecting the mutual re may not have intended for by the was not erased document which thing, dispute. For one lease to cover the Bank from prohibits money had forwarded to the if the action taking any further collection accrued, the time it is doubtful Mutzes at it it, the Mutzes. they have been default would cоllateral, it receiving the Mutzes’ Agreement Respecting In 1987 when repay- solely to the Fosters for look would Secondly, executed. debtedness was repre- As this ment of the loan. of the leases at Bank’s valuation 1980 and production between sents could be as an 1987 and 1988 viewed appropriation of these funds the Bank’s contemplating not indicаtion that ef- as a further collection could be viewed Finally, large influx of cash.3 some such Agreement Respect- prohibited fort correspondence sent the Bank to *5 Indebtedness, and, by implication, the in this various involved case if this release. It is clear that indicating viewed as that the Bank was be to the Mutzes money had been delivered cоncentrating solely future income. For on earned, i.e., when it was between instance, in a March letter to the it would have been handled President, Mutzes, Hall, Mr. royalties all other received same manner as that the transfer of the leases to the *6 advantage where the Bank took of an unso- knew of the Pipeline existence of the Pride phistiсated debtor.” checks at the signed, time release was majority explained, parties As the parties may anticipat- that the not have long this action have a and involved finan- ed this situation. But as the district court history. relationship began cial Their stated, possibility that lease in- all “[t]he plaintiffs money when the Bank loaned the fairly come was not accounted for can parties invest oil. When the realized contempla- said to within the plaintiffs that the could not meet their loan [have been] obligations, they plan parties. entered into a where- tion of the Both to a re- plaintiffs satisfy their debt lease take a risk that future events will farm, through of a had which weigh party. By in favor of the other posted as collateral for the debt. The release, entering parties accept that fortuitously generous farm price, sold at a security repose.” risk for the fully and the debt was satisfied. At the par- that the majority also concludes deal, parties signed conclusion of the pre-1987 contemplated ties have release, protected which release not covered the re- transactions were both the and the Bank from view, however, if the my lease. any way relating further claims “in to or limit the release to transac- had intended to connected with the Loan made frame, time in a certain tions made [plaintiffs].” so stated. “To the have release would view, my signed by thе mutual release ‘any all contrary, release bars ... unambiguous, was its anyway whatsoever ... relat- claims ... language plaintiffs’ clear bars suit I connected to’ the loan.” believe to or Although it is true below. inten- acceptance Bank’s release, parties governs a tion of the clearly checks was related to scope is to оf “that intent be determined transaction, to the loan and that connected language of the from the release. The by the mutual to a release or action thereon is barred intention of the advice of signed after counsel.1 America, Appellee, STATES
UNITED TURNER, Appellant.
Michael 91-3299.
No. Appeals, Court of States
Eighth Circuit. 8, 1992. Jan.
Submitted 9, 1992. June
Decided Mo., Price, ap- Springfield,
S.Dean pellant. Mo., Crowe, Springfield,
William G. appellee. ARNOLD, Chief S.
Before RICHARD HANSEN, Circuit Judge, McMILLIAN Judges. ARNOLD, Judge. Chief S.
RICHARD *7 appeals conviction for his Turner Michael custody, in vio- escape from attempting to affirm. 751(a). We U.S.C. lation § Michael on June Beginning Ward 10-C of Room 115 in Turner lived Center Fed- Medical United States Missouri. On Springfield, eral Prisoners officers con- correctional cells in “shake-down” ducted routine examining Turner’s Turner’s ward. suspicious when cell, became the officers large stockpile he had a thеy noticed Upon jerky. sausage and beef summer an officer discovered inspection, closer in the cell had security screen the window place being held and was cut out part He also noticed steel wool. Nevertheless, proceed cannot of action a cause pursue action wish holding Bank. against the defendant their checks giving notification. long without for so notes reducing the during years, those thus September was effective on by the amount of the amount of In an October Appendix 295. (less amounts the usual withheld checks Voggesser, the Mutzes’ letter to Harold argu- A expenses). valid cover taxes accountant, Mr. Hall states that the Bank these checks ment could bе made that royalties paid all on is “entitled to ” any differently sim- not treated should be or after 1987.... years ply they arrived because interpretation possible 332. A of these let earned, actually and after the only the Bank was entitled ters is that the mutual release and the execution of future, earnings. opposed past, Fur as Respecting Indebtеdness. thermore, deposition, in his Mr. Hall stated i.e., litigation, in this that no one involved release, we evaluate a Fosters, or the However, words, unambiguous, control. attorneys, was aware that this amount of ambiguous, focus the release is when being suspense. Appen in money was held intentions of the turns to the together, viewed this evi dix 520. When Mo drafting the document. See Grand upon the notion that the dence casts doubt Co., tors, F.Supp. Motor Inc. v. Ford designed to cover this mutual release was (W.D.Mo.1982). determining In situation. release,, the courts must look scope of the “ short, question presents this case ‘fairly may said to have been to what be on cannot be resolved contemplation at material faсt which within the ” Haines, The mutual given.’ summary judgment. the release was the time the District was the basis for Court’s F.Supp. (quoting at 969 Montrose Sav which 668, decision, protects from fur- Landers, both the Bank 675 S.W.2d ings Bank v. Fosters, by the Mutzes and the (Mo.App.1984)). The mutual re ther claims 670-71 from further actions taken application and the Mutzes ambiguous its lease $114,000 valuation, almost reaching amount of thеse checks Bank determined The its $120,000 any future generate approximately total without reaches the leases would $5,000 royalty all. per income. income at month in regard legal the Bank with to this loan. effect as evidenced language question There is a of what the mutual cannot be contradicted or by parol varied or release means a situation where a sub- extrinsic evidence.” State ex rel. Stutz v. money, suspense amount of stantial held Campbell, 876 (Mo.Ct.App. gas producer, an oil and was delivered 1980) (citations omitted). The majority years actually after it accrued. This ais ambiguity finds in the language of the question which cannot answered without release because of cеrtain extrinsic doc- a trial. uments, e.g., Agreement Respecting In- judgment The of the District Court is debtedness and 1988 correspondence be- reversed, and the cause remanded for fur- plaintiffs tween the and the Bank. It does proceedings opin- ther consistent with this purport not ambiguity find in the lan- ion. guage of the release itself. In actuality, It is so ordered. broad, plain language of the release prevents claims that in any way relate to WELLFORD, Judge, Senior Circuit the loan transaction at issue. The dissenting. agree that the Pride Pipeline repre- agree Because I with the district court’s sent originally secured the analysis case, I conclusion re- Bank’s loan. spectfully dissent. question The in this case is not whether investing have in Tex- Rather, is entitled to the checks. as and Kansas oil since at the 1970’s. At the issue is whether the mutual release pertinent appeal, they all times to this bars this action plaintiffs. The ma- represented by competent counsel. As the jority suggests that the release did not noted, district court this “is not a case cover party this action because neither