Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02282/USCOURTS-ca10-86-02282-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United Stat.ea Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

MAR 1 ~1999 

FIRST TEXAS SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, ) 

a Texas Savings and Loan Association, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

HOWARD L. RASKIN, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant, ) 

) 

and ) 

) 

AUTUMN OAKS, LTD., an Oklahoma Limited ) 

Partnership: COUNTY TREASURER FOR ) 

TULSA COUNTY: THE BOARD OF COUNTY ) 

COMMISSIONERS OF TULSA COUNTY, ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 86-2282 

(D.C. No. 85-C-49-B) 

(N.D. Okla.) 

Before ANDERSON and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and ROGERS, District 

Judge.** 

**The Honorable Richard D. Rogers, United States District Judge 

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 

*This order and 

be cited, or 

for purposes of 

res judicata, 

judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 86-2282 Document: 010110024601 Date Filed: 03/14/1989 Page: 1 
assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

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

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Defendant appeals from the district court's order denying his 

motion for new trial or to alter or amend judgment and from the 

district court's judgment declaring him liable pursuant to a 

guaranty for damages of $2,466,624.74 and post-judgment interest. 

Defendant argues this court should overturn the judgment and order 

for three reasons: (1) he was entitled to rely on the "gross rent 

test" provision of the guaranty contract, thereby escaping 

liability; (2) he was entitled to credit for a stipulated tax 

benefit allegedly conferred on plaintiff after the sale to a third 

party of the foreclosed property subject to the guaranty; and (3) 

post-judgment interest should have been calculated in accordance 

with 28 U.S.C. § 1961 and not according to contract provisions. 

Upon consideration of the briefs and record on appeal, we 

affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the district 

court's corrected findings of fact and conclusions of law and the 

district court's order denying a new trial or alteration or 

amendment of judgment, both filed August 1, 1986. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 86-2282 Document: 010110024601 Date Filed: 03/14/1989 Page: 2