Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02067/USCOURTS-ca10-88-02067-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bonnie T. Ginder
Appellant
Charles R. Ginder
Appellant
International State Bank
Appellee

Document Text:

• PI LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

MAY 211991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

INTERNATIONAL STATE BANK, Clerk 

a New Mexico state banking 

corporation, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

CHARLES R. GINDER and 

BONNIE T. GINDER, 

Defendants-Appellants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 88-2067 

(D.C. Civil No. 86-0895-JB) 

(D.N.M.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, .SETH and BARRETT, 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); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This action brought by the International State Bank is a suit 

on several promissory notes executed by the defendants Charles and 

Bonnie Ginder. The defendants asserted several counterclaims 

*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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-2067 Document: 010110116588 Date Filed: 05/21/1991 Page: 1 
against the Bank. The trial court granted the Bank's motion for 

sunnnary judgment, and granted no relief on the counterclaims. The 

defendants have appealed. 

It was established without contradiction that the notes were 

executed and delivered; they were negotiable; the money was 

borrowed and the notes became due but were not paid; the amount 

due was established, and the Bank was holder in due course. 

Discovery was had and affidavits with briefs were filed to support 

and to oppose the motion for sunnnary judgment. The notes were 

secured by a pledge of the assets of Ginco, Inc., an entity owned 

by defendants. 

There is no question but that the elements of plaintiff's 

cause of action were established, and as to it there were no 

material facts at issue. By all prevailing standards the moving 

party had fully supported its motion for sunnnary judgment. See 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 3i7; 

Dart Industries v. Plunkett Co., 704 F.2d 496 (10th Cir.); Baum v. 

Gillman, 648 F.2d 1292 (10th Cir.). 

The counterclaim of defendants asserted that there was bad 

faith on the part of the Bank. It was argued that the Bank had 

refused to renegotiate the loan when on several occasions 

defendants asserted that they had a buyer for the assets pledged 

as collateral to support the loan. These assets were those of an 

entity, Ginco, Inc., owned by defendants. In these proposed 

transactions the defendants sought to have plaintiff release its 

lien and to take a substantial loss on the loan. The Bank refused 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-2067 Document: 010110116588 Date Filed: 05/21/1991 Page: 2 
• 

several times to do this. On the last or third of such 

transactions proposed by defendants the Bank did agree to the sale 

of the pledged assets on a condition. This was that Ginco, then 

insolvent, file for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 so that the Bank 

would be protected by the priority of a secured creditor as 

against trade creditors who had received back assets sold on 

credit to Ginco. The plaintiff, shortly before, lost part of its 

security when defendants permitted some of their creditors to take 

back inventory from the Ginco warehouse. This inventory had been 

the subject of security agreements for the Bank and another 

lienholder. The Bank had no knowledge in advance of this 

dissipation of Ginco assets by defendants. 

The defendants in the"ir counterclaim for affirmative defenses 

urge that the failure of the Bank to agree to the earlier proposed 

sale of pledged assets to a purchaser of Ginco, and the condition 

in the final proposal that Ginco take bankruptcy were proof of 

their "bad faith" counterclaim. 

The showing by defendants on the swmnary judgment motion of 

plaintiff, including a response to plaintiff's motion, did not 

demonstrate the existence of any material fact issues, and did not 

establish any legal basis for their "good faith" claim. There was 

advanced no authority whatever why the plaintiff should have 

compromised its rights against the defendants in the several 

proposed sales of Ginco assets. There was nothing shown in any 

agreement or understanding that the Bank had any such duty. As to 

the Chapter 7 condition in the final proposal and agreement, 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-2067 Document: 010110116588 Date Filed: 05/21/1991 Page: 3 
nothing was shown to demonstrate that such a condition was in any 

way improper or illegal. The reason for the condition was 

contained in the prior disposal of assets of Ginco by defendants 

and Ginco's financial condition. 

The defendants failed to appear at a hearing the court had 

set on the summary judgment motion. This hearing had been 

postponed at least once at defendants' request. There had been a 

series of delays by defendants throughout the proceedings. 

Notices were mailed to defendants at addresses provided by 

defendants. Defendants did not appear at a deferred date, or at 

any other time, and a default judgment was entered on the motion. 

The trial court ordered the judgment on the summary judgment 

motion to be immediately entered. The "immediate" entry aspect of 

the order was a sanction for the defendants' delays. The order 

itself, of course, was not. We find no error or abuse of 

discretion in such a sanction. 

We have examined the other points raised by defendants and 

find them to be without merit. 

AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

PER CURIAM 

Appellate Case: 88-2067 Document: 010110116588 Date Filed: 05/21/1991 Page: 4