descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Centron Holdings, Inc., a Colorado Corporation v. Isabel G. Cleary, an Individual, Defendant-Counterclaimant-Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellant v. John M. Clikeman, Esq. Harlan P. Pelz, Esq. Kidneigh, Hughes, Pelz, Leach and Clikeman, P.C. Canton Oil Corporation, a Delaware Corporation Centron Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Parent and Successor in Interest to Centron Corporation, a Colorado Corporation Centron Corporation, a Colorado Corporation Drakeman Services, Ltd., a Liberian Corporation Clifford D. Carpenter, President of Centron Corporation and President of Centron Holdings Corporation Hughes, Clikeman and Associates, P.C., Third-Partydefendants-Appellees

Citations: 82 F.3d 425; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 21649; 1996 WL 173169Docket: 94-1503

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; April 12, 1996; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In the case of Centron Holdings, Inc. v. Isabel G. Cleary, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit addressed several appeals arising from a collection action related to a promissory note. Centron Holdings, Inc. (CHI) initiated the action to recover amounts due from Isabel G. Cleary, who counterclaimed and also filed a third-party complaint against additional defendants. The district court granted summary judgment in CHI's favor, dismissed the third-party defendants, and issued a judgment on the pleadings regarding Cleary's counterclaim, along with a protective order and sanctions in CHI's favor. Cleary appealed, challenging procedural aspects including trial scheduling, discovery responses, and the validity of an assignment related to the promissory note. The appellate court conducted a de novo review and found that Cleary failed to demonstrate reversible error on these issues, affirming the district court's judgment. The court also denied Cleary's motion to supplement the appellate record and clarified that the order and judgment were not precedential. The case was submitted without oral argument at the parties' request.

Legal Issues Addressed

Admissibility and Validity of Evidence in Collection Actions

Application: Challenges to the admissibility of affidavits and validity of assignments related to promissory notes must establish material impact on the judgment to succeed.

Reasoning: The United States District Court for the District of Colorado faced several appeals regarding the validity of Centron's assignment of a 'Note' to Centron Holdings Inc. (CHI), the admissibility of an affidavit supporting this assignment.

Citation of Unpublished Opinions

Application: Unpublished opinions can be cited if they hold persuasive value and copies are provided as per the General Order of November 29, 1993.

Reasoning: Unpublished opinions may now be cited if they have persuasive value on a material issue, provided a copy is attached to the citing document or furnished to the Court and all parties during oral argument, per the General Order of November 29, 1993, which suspends 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995.

Handling of Appeals without Oral Argument

Application: Cases may be submitted on the briefs without oral argument if requested by the parties and deemed appropriate by the court.

Reasoning: The court clarified that its order and judgment do not serve as binding precedent, except under specific legal doctrines, and noted that the case was submitted without oral argument based on the parties' request.

Procedural Challenges in Summary Judgment

Application: The appellant's claims regarding procedural errors and timing of the summary judgment were found insufficient to demonstrate reversible error.

Reasoning: The appellant, Ms. Cleary, was found to have not demonstrated reversible error, leading to the affirmation of the district court's judgment.

Standard of Review for Summary Judgment

Application: The appellate court reviews summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the district court to evaluate the existence of genuine issues of material fact.

Reasoning: The appellate court reviews the sufficiency of complaints de novo and applies the same legal standard as the district court for summary judgment, which requires no genuine issue of material fact.