Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01479/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01479-0/pdf.json

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

---

, 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tf"oth Gr"'."!1it 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AUG 8 1989 

BILL G. BROWN; HORNET HOUSING 

ASSOCIATES, an Oklahoma Limited 

Partnership; PRYOR HOUSING 

ASSOCIATES, an Oklahoma 

Limited Partnership, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v. 

A.G. LIMITED-1980-VI, a California 

Limited Partnership; A.G. LIMITED 

1980-XIII, a California Limited 

Partnership, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

> Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 87-1479 

) (D.C. No. 85-C-159-E) 

) (N.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BALDOCK, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

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 

Plaintiffs commenced this action for declaratory relief, 

seeking a determination that defendants' interests, as limited 

partners, in the two plaintiff Oklahoma limited partnerships had 

* 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. 

Appellate Case: 87-1479 Document: 01019974420 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 1 
been reduced to zero pursuant to the partnership agreements, based 

upon defendants' failure to make required capital contributions. 

Defendants asserted they were entitled, pursuant to the 

partnership agreements, to withhold capital contributions because 

plaintiffs failed to provide defendants with information as 

required by the partnership agreements. Defendants asserted a 

counterclaim against plaintiff Brown, seeking a declaratory 

judgment determining defendants had properly removed Brown as the 

general partner in the plaintiff Oklahoma limited partnerships, 

pursuant to the partnership agreements, based upon Brown's refusal 

to provide defendants with the information requested. 

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of 

plaintiffs, holding plaintiffs had provided defendants with all 

the information required by the partnership agreements and, 

therefore, defendants were not excused from making the required 

capital contributions. The district court further held that, 

pursuant to the terms of the partnership agreements, defendants' 

interests in the Oklahoma limited partnerships had been reduced to 

zero. 

Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the district 

court's decision, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60, asserting 

the partnership agreements provided only for an action to recover 

the capital contributions, rather than an action to reduce 

defendants' interests in the limited partnerships, where, as in 

this case, the limited partners of the defendant California 

limited partnerships paid the amount required for the capital 

contributions to defendants, but defendants failed to pay the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 87-1479 Document: 01019974420 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 2 
capital contributions to plaintiffs. The district court held 

defendants' argument had not been timely asserted. Further, the 

district court held the provisions of the partnership agreements 

fully supported the reduction of defendants' interests in the 

Oklahoma limited partnerships. 

On appeal, defendants assert the trial court erred 

by declaring a forfeiture of the investors' interest in 

two Oklahoma limited partnerships, rather than enforcing 

the correct remedy under the applicable limited 

partnership agreements, which is a money judgment 

against the California general partner who was 

responsible for paying the investors' money downstream 

to the Oklahoma general partner who originally brought 

this action. 

Appellants' Brief at 2. This issue was not properly before the 

district court until defendants' motion for reconsideration. This 

court will review a district court order granting or denying a 

motion for reconsideration made pursuant to Rule 59 or 60 using an 

abuse of discretion standard of review. See, ~, Patty 

Precision Prods. Co. v. Brown & Sharpe Mfg. Co., 846 F.2d 1247, 

1251 (10th Cir. 1988); Republic Resources Corp. v. ISI Petroleum 

West Caddo Drilling Prog. 1981, 836 F.2d 462, 465 (10th Cir. 

1987). 

Review of the record on appeal indicates the district court 

did not abuse its discretion in determining defendants failed to 

raise this issue in a timely manner. At the time the district 

court granted summary judgment, in November, 1986, this action had 

been pending for almost two years. The summary judgment motions 

had been pending since July, 1985. The parties completed 

discovery in January, 1986. The magistrate made a recommendation 

on the summary judgment motions in May, 1986, after full briefing 

-3-

Appellate Case: 87-1479 Document: 01019974420 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 3 
of the issues by the parties. All parties had an opportunity to 

fully address the magistrate's recommendation. The issue asserted 

on appeal was not raised until the filing of a motion to intervene 

by representatives of the limited partners of the California 

partnerships, four days before the district court adopted the 

magistrate's recommendation and granted plaintiffs' motion for 

summary judgment, and eleven days before the scheduled trial date. 

The motion to intervene was subsequently withdrawn. Defendants 

adopted the argument now asserted on appeal after summary judgment 

had been awarded. 

The untimely assertion of this argument was not based upon 

newly discovered evidence or any other appropriate ground for 

relief from judgment provided under Rule 60. Defendants were 

fully aware of the provisions of the partnership agreements. 

Further, defendants possessed the information that their limited 

partners had paid defendants the money required to make the 

capital contributions, and even obtained a protective order 

preventing plaintiffs from discovering this information. The 

district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants' 

motion for reconsideration. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Northern Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

-4-

Appellate Case: 87-1479 Document: 01019974420 Date Filed: 08/08/1989 Page: 4