Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01931/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01931-0/pdf.json

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

---

FI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

·renth Cirmi: 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAR 151990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

QUAIL SPRINGS PLAZA LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP, HERBERT S. MILLER, 

RICHARD L. KRAMER, and ALAN 

PERLSTEIN, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

QUAIL SPRINGS ASSOCIATES, LTD., 

STEPHEN K. FLORY, JAMES M. 

MOORE, III, JAMES F. MARTIN, 

and D. MICHAEL WEDDING, 

v. 

Defendants, 

Counterclairnants-Appellees. 

WESTERN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 

Third Party 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 88-1931 

) (D.C. No. CIV-85-2782-T) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY and BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and O'CONNOR,** District 

Judge. 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

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

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

**The Honorable Earl E. O'Connor, Chief Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 88-1931 Document: 01019966362 Date Filed: 03/15/1990 Page: 1 
This case involves two claims arising out of a real estate 

transaction: a breach of contract claim by appellants ("buyers") 

and a counterclaim for slander of title by appellees ("sellers''). 

The district court entered summary judgment in favor of sellers on 

the contract claim, and a jury found for sellers on their 

counterclaim against buyers for slander of title. Buyers have 

filed this appeal, alleging that the trial court erred in granting 

summary judgment on the contract claim, in instructing the jury on 

the elements of the tort claim, and in granting sellers' motion in 

limine. After oral argument and submission of the case, buyers 

also moved to supplement the record on appeal. We affirm the 

judgment below and deny the motion to supplement the record. 1 

As a preliminary matter, buyers' motion to supplement the 

record must be denied. Rule 10 (e) of the Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure states, in relevant part, 

If anything material to either party is omitted from the 

record by error or accident ... the court of appeals, 

on proper suggestion or of its own initiative, may direct 

that the omission or misstatement be corrected, and if 

necessary that a supplemental record be certified and 

transmitted. 

Fed. R. App. P. lO(e). That buyers' failure to include portions 

of the trial transcript and certain deposition excerpts was not the 

result of mere inadvertance or oversight is strongly suggested by 

( 1) their failure to designate the trial transcript in their 

1 Sellers' motion for leave to file a brief in opposition 

to buyers' motion to supplement the record is hereby granted. The 

clerk is directed to file an original copy of the same. 

- 2 

Appellate Case: 88-1931 Document: 01019966362 Date Filed: 03/15/1990 Page: 2 
Designation of Record on Appeal and failure to move for leave to 

include deposition excerpts in the record, and (2) their failure 

to act upon the clerk's January 4, 1990, admonition that trial 

transcripts were not automatically included in the record on appeal 

and that depositions, whose inclusion was not specifically 

authorized by this court, were not a part of the record. 

Accordingly, buyers may not now be heard to complain that the 

record on appeal is incomplete. See United States v. Hart, 729 

F.2d 662, 671 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1161 (1985) 

("It is the responsibility of the appellant to insure that all 

materials on which he seeks to rely are part of the record on 

appeal.") 

Turning to the merits of buyers' appeal, we discern the 

relevant facts are as follows. The parties entered into a Purchase 

Agreement concerning certain real estate. When buyers failed to 

close the transaction on the scheduled date, sellers redeemed two 

irrevocable letters of credit totalling $300,000.00 that buyers had 

provided, as liquidated damages. Buyers thereupon recorded the 

Purchase Agreement, which they refused to release, resulting in the 

collapse of a deal between sellers and other purchasers involving 

the real estate in question. Buyers filed the instant suit, 

seeking return of the $300,000.00 and alleging that they were 

excused from performance of the contract by the sellers' breach 

thereof. Sellers counterclaimed for slander of title. 

The controversy in this case stems from differing views of 

what effect, if any, an agreement known as the "Construction, 

- 3 

Appellate Case: 88-1931 Document: 01019966362 Date Filed: 03/15/1990 Page: 3 
Operation and Reciprocal Easement Agreement" ("COREA") had upon the 

land that was the subject of the Purchase Agreement. 

terms of the agreement, 

Under the 

3. Title. The Property is to be conveyed free of 

encumbrances except as listed in the Title Binder, title 

is to be good of record and in fact and indefeasible. 

Within ten (10) business days from the date hereof, 

Seller shall deliver to Purchaser, at Seller's expense 

a Title Binder from Oklahoma City Abstract and Title 

Company ("the Title Company"). The Title Binder shall 

consist of: (a) a current Title Report; (b) a Title 

Policy Commitment in the full amount of the Purchase 

Price; and (c) copies of all recorded documents ("Title 

Documents) easements, covenants, conditions or 

restrictions which affect the Property. In the event the 

Title Report shows any exceptions which are unacceptable 

to Purchaser, Purchaser shall have the option to (i) 

declare this Agreement terminated and receive back the 

Deposit; or (ii) waive any or all such objections and 

close subject to such defects. If Seller does not 

actually receive from Purchaser, within thirty (30) days 

after Purchaser's receipt of the Title Binder, written 

objection to the Title Binder, Purchaser shall be deemed 

to have accepted the Title Binder. If Seller does not 

or cannot remedy such defects to which Purchaser timely 

objected within seven (7) days after the date Seller 

receives Purchaser's objection, Purchaser must give 

written notice to Seller, within five (5) business days 

after the expiration of Seller's seven ( 7) day cure 

period that Purchaser has terminated this Contract. If 

Seller does not actually receive such notice of 

termination within such five (5) business day period, 

Purchaser shall be deemed to have accepted the Title 

Binder and all exceptions shown therein. 

Exhibit A, pp. 3-4, Appellees' Brief. In substance, buyers claim 

that the COREA was an encumbrance, rendering the title tendered by 

sellers defective, thereby excusing buyers from performing. 

Sellers maintain that the COREA did not affect title to the land, 

and therefore buyers were not excused from going through with the 

purchase. Although buyers also argue that sellers failed to 

provide a title binder that was acceptable to buyers (thus 

- 4 

Appellate Case: 88-1931 Document: 01019966362 Date Filed: 03/15/1990 Page: 4 
purportedly excusing buyers' breach), the only objection buyers 

raised to the binders offered is that they listed the COREA as an 

exception to coverage. Again, therefore, the contract dispute 

centers on the question of the COREA's effect on sellers' title. 

In ruling upon the cross-motions for summary judgment, the 

trial court fully addressed each of buyers' arguments now raised 

on appeal. We find the district court's opinion persuasive and 

sound, and accordingly affirm the entry of summary judgment in 

favor of sellers for the reasons well-stated by the court below. 

Buyers' objections to the trial court's jury instructions on 

the slander of title claim are also without merit. Tenth Circuit 

Rule 10.2.3 states, inter alia, 

When an appeal is based upon challenge to the admission 

or exclusion of evidence, the giving or failure to give 

a jury instruction, or any other ruling or order, a copy 

of the pages of the reporter's transcript at which the 

evidence, offer of proof, instruction, ruling, or order 

and any necessary objection are recorded must be 

included. 

10th cir. R. 10.2.3. Because buyers failed to include transcripts 

of the trial court's instruction and buyers' objections thereto, 

we may not consider the claimed errors. See Alfonso v. Lund, 783 

F.2d 958, 965 n.4 (10th Cir. 1986). Even taking as true buyers' 

unsupported representation of the proceedings below, we find that 

the assignments of error are without substance. 

Because summary judgment was properly entered in sellers' 

favor on the contract claim, the trial court correctly instructed 

the jury that the element of falsity had been established. As to 

the malice element, the Oklahoma supreme Court's recent opinion in 

- 5 -

Appellate Case: 88-1931 Document: 01019966362 Date Filed: 03/15/1990 Page: 5 
Hamilton v. Amwar Petroleum Co., 769 P.2d 146 (Okla. 1989), 

demonstrates that the court below correctly instructed the jury 

that the sellers need only prove that buyers' recording the COREA 

showed a "lack of good faith and absence of probable cause, with out 

more." Id. at 149. We further hold that the trial court's 

instruction to the jury on the element of causation adequately 

presented buyers' theory of the case. In sum, after reviewing 

buyers' arguments we find no basis upon which to disturb the jury's 

verdict on liability. 

Finally, the trial court's opinion granting sellers' motion 

in limine correctly noted that the interest on sellers' loan was 

recoverable as damages on the slander of title claim. Finding no 

error in the proceedings below, we conclude that the judgment of 

the district court should be and is AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

- 6 -

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Earl E. O'Connor 

Chief Judge 

District of Kansas 

Appellate Case: 88-1931 Document: 01019966362 Date Filed: 03/15/1990 Page: 6