Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04012/USCOURTS-ca10-92-04012-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

FILL D 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALlBited States Court of Appeal.o, 

Tenth Circuit 

HEBER S. JACOBSEN, 

an individual, 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

v. 

NATIONAL BANK OF 

COMMERCE, a national 

banking association, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant,) 

W. C. JENNE, JR. , an 

individual, S&W 

CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 

OF TENNESSEE, a 

Tennessee corporation, 

Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

APR 13 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No . 92-4012 

(D.C. No. 91-C-244-G) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before KELLY and SETH, Circuit Judges, and ALLEY, District 

Judge**· 

Appellant National Bank of Commerce appeals an order of the 

District Court for the District of Utah granting the motion for 

summary judgment of Appellee Heber S . Jacobsen. The district 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circui t, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel . 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

**Honorable Wayne E. Alley, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 92-4012 Document: 010110200923 Date Filed: 04/13/1993 Page: 1 
court held that Appellant Bank assumed the obligations owed to 

Appellee under a real estate contract. We affirm. 

Appellant raises two issues on appeal: whether the 

Assignment of Contract unambiguously transferred to Appellant the 

obligations owed by W. C. Jenne, the assignor, to Appellee; and 

whether the Assignment of Contract violated the Utah statute of 

frauds. 

On April 2, 1982, Appellee sold a piece of real property to 

Mr. Jenne. Under the terms of the real estate contract, Mr. Jenne 

agreed to pay monthly installments to an escrow agent. 

On May 27, 1983, Mr. Jenne executed an Assignment of Contract 

in favor of Appellant. Although Appellant did not sign the 

Assignment of Contract, it was recorded and a copy of the recorded 

document was sent to Appellant and kept in its files. 

Appellant argues that it did not intend to assume the 

obligations under the real estate contract, and because the 

Assignment of Contract was not signed by Appellant and the amount 

of indebtedness was not disclosed, the Assignment is ambiguous and 

does not reflect an intention to assume the obligations. 

Appellant contends that while it did accept the Assignment of 

Contract insofar as it transferred all of the right, title and 

interest of Mr. Jenne in and to the property, it did not assume 

any liability. 

The district court found that the Assignment of Contract was 

unambiguous and that there was no statute of frauds problem, and 

granted Appellee's motion for summary judgment. We agree. 

- 2-

Appellate Case: 92-4012 Document: 010110200923 Date Filed: 04/13/1993 Page: 2 
The Utah Supreme Court sets forth the following guidelines 

for contract interpretation: 

"An assignment is interpreted according 

to the rules of contract construction. In 

interpreting a contract, the intentions of the 

parties are controlling. If the contract is 

in writing and the language is not ambiguous, 

the intention of the parties must be 

determined from the words of the agreement." 

Winegar v. Froerer Corp., 813 P.2d 104, 108 (Utah) (citations 

omitted). The language of the Assignment of Contract is 

unambiguous. Under the Assignment, Appellant "will duly keep, 

observe and perform all of the terms, conditions and provisions of 

the said agreement [the real estate contract] that are to be kept, 

observed and performed by the assignors." The document as a whole 

indicates that under the terms of the Assignment of Contract, 

Appellant will assume the obligations of Mr. Jenne under the real 

estate contract. 

If Appellant accepted the Assignment, it accepted both the 

assignment of the benefits and the delegation of the duties. 

Although Appellant did not sign the document, the facts indicate 

that Appellant nonetheless accepted the Assignment of Contract. 

Appellant admits that it accepted the assignment of the benefits. 

Further, it made payments for nine years, kept a copy of the 

recorded document in its files, and sent a letter confirming its 

assumption of the obligations. Our evaluation of the letter of 

confirmation does not violate the parol evidence rule since we are 

not reviewing the evidence to interpret the Assignment of 

Contract, but to determine whether Appellant accepted the 

document. These facts persuade us that Appellant accepted the 

-3-

------ ----

Appellate Case: 92-4012 Document: 010110200923 Date Filed: 04/13/1993 Page: 3 
Assignment of Contract which unambiguously included a delegation 

of duties. 

The real estate contract, which was referred to in the 

Assignment of Contract, established the amount of indebtedness, 

and thus the absence of such figures in the Assignment itself is 

not fatal. 

We further find that the letter from Appellant's attorney 

confirming Appellant's assumption of liabilities satisfies the 

statute of frauds. See Machan Hampshire v. Western Real Estate, 

779 P.2d 230, 234 (Utah App.). 

Accordingly, the order of the District Court for the District 

of Utah is AFFIRMED. 

-4 -

Entered for the Court 

Oliver Seth 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-4012 Document: 010110200923 Date Filed: 04/13/1993 Page: 4