Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06302/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06302-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FILL D 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Unit.eel StataCourtof Appeall! Tenth Circuit 

MAY 11 1993 

JOHNNIE L. PHELPS, ) 

) ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Clerk . ) 

v. ) Nos. 92-6277 

) & 

FINA OIL & CHEMICAL COMPANY, ) 92-6302 

) (D.C. No. CIV-90-1092-R) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) (W. D . Okla. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and VAN BEBBER,** 

District Judge. 

**Honorable G. Thomas Van Bebber, District Judge, United States 

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

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of these appeals. ~ Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cases are therefore ordered 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Te t h Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, ·res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-6302 Document: 010110114157 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 1 
Plaintiff-appellant Johnnie L. Phelps appeals from a judgment 

in favor of defendant-appellee Fina Oil and Chemical Co. 1 We 

affirm. 

The relevant facts are set forth in Phelps v. Fina Oil & 

Chemical Co., 952 F.2d 354 (10th Cir. 1991) (Phelps I), and will 

not be repeated. There we recognized two circumstances under 

which a creditor's bill action, or an action in the nature of a 

creditor's bill, could be maintained. First, a judgment creditor 

may bring a creditor's bill action to recover assets transferred 

by a judgment debtor if the judgment debtor has an actionable 

claim against the transferee. See 952 F.2d at 356 (citing 

Roxoline Petroleum Co. v. Wilson, 253 P. 59, 62 (Okla. 1926)). 

Second, a judgment creditor may bring a creditor's bill action 

against a transferee of a fraudulent conveyance without showing 

the judgment debtor has an actionable claim against the 

transferee. Id. at 356-57 (relying on Rucks-Brandt Constr. Corp. 

v. Silver, 151 P.2d 399 (Okla. 1944)). We reversed and remanded 

for further proceedings. 

On remand, both parties moved for summary judgment. The 

district court concluded that plaintiff's claim did not meet the 

test for the first type of creditor's bill action. It disagreed 

with plaintiff's interpretation of Phelps I that he could 

establish a creditor's bill claim only by showing that he is a 

1 Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from a July 30, 1992, 

order, case No. 92-6277, and a notice of appeal from an August 27, 

1992, judgment, case No. 92-6302. We consolidated these appeals 

on October 23, 1992. 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-6302 Document: 010110114157 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 2 
judgment creditor of Paragon, the judgment debtor, and that 

defendant holds property or proceeds from which he is entitled to 

enforce payment of his judgment against Paragon. Finally, it 

characterized plaintiff's position as "vehemently disavow[ing] any 

reliance upon the second type of action," Aplt's App. at 44, but 

concluded that if plaintiff's claim were the second type of 

action, it was barred by Oklahoma's two-year statute of 

limitations for fraud, Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 95. The district 

court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. 

Summary judgment may be granted where there is no genuine 

issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We review a 

decision on summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard 

used by the district court. Applied Genetics Int'l, Inc. v. First 

Affiliated Secs., Inc., 912 F.2d 1238, 1241 (10th Cir. 1990). 

Both parties agree that the material facts are undisputed; we 

therefore are presented with questions of law. 

Our conclusion in Phelps I, 952 F.2d at 356, that plaintiff 

may not bring the first type of creditor's bill action because 

Paragon has no actionable claim against defendant , is the law of 

the case, and we will not reexamine it. See Mason v. Texaco. 

Inc., 948 F.2d 1546, 1553 (10th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 112 

S. Ct. 1941 (1992). Further, we agree with the district court's 

int rpretation of our holding in Phelps I as to the elements of 

the two t y ~s of creditor bill actions. Finally, while plaintiff 

c : aims the ~strict court's characterization of his position as 

"vehemently disavow[ing]" relianc e. on the second type of action is 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-6302 Document: 010110114157 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 3 
unsupported by the record, he has not pointed to any portions of 

the record that contradict the district court's statement or that 

establish his entitlement to recovery under the second type of 

action. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

r• 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-6302 Document: 010110114157 Date Filed: 05/11/1993 Page: 4