A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det er m i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 t h Ci r . R. 3 4 . 1 ( G) . T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t er m s and condi t i ons of 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 6 .3 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly11,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT S T E VE N T . S T E I N; J OL E E N K. S T E I N,

P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants , v. G R E G O R Y L . S T E I N ; S H A R O N W. ST E I N ; M E R I D I A N PL A C E , M er i di an P l a c e , LL C; P L WES T, LL C; WES T E RN F RO NT DE VE L OP M E NT IN C ., D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 3421 ( D . C . N o . 0 4 - C V - 1 3 1 1 - J T M)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , AN DE RS ON , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. Pl ai nt i ffs St even a nd J ol een St ei n appea l fr om di s t r i ctcour t ’ s entr yof sum m aryj ud gm ent i n fav or of d efen dan t s, G regoryand S haron S t ei n an d b usi ness e n t i t i e s fo r me d b yGr e g o r yS t e i n . W e e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n a n d a ffi r m.-2-

O n Sept ember 20, 2004, St even a nd J ol een ( a mar r i ed coupl e) fi l ed a co m p lai n t al legin g that G reg o ryan d S h aro n (S teve n ’s bro ther a n d h is w ife) w ere l i abl e fordamages forbr eac h of contr act , fr aud, unj us tenr i chment , br eac h of the dut yof good fa i t h and fa i rdeal i ng, and br eac h of fi duci arydut y . T he compl ai nt a ls o re q u e s te d a n a c c o u n tin g . Pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s ar os e fr om a pl an forG r egory ’ s r eal - es t at e deve l opm ent company( defe ndantW es t ern Fr ontD evel opm ent ) t o pur chas e and de vel op t he M er i di an Tow n C ent er , a part i al l ycompl et ed s hoppi ng cent eri n t he St at e of W a sh in g to n . S tev e n (a c a re e r b a n k e r) a n d Jo lee n a ss e rte d th a t th e yh a d a n e q u ity i nt er es ti n t he pr oj ect . G r egory( a deve l oper ) and Shar on m ai nt ai ned that pl ai nt i ffs w er e i nvol ved as l ender s and thatbyM ar ch 2004 the $1. 4 m i l l i on l oan h a d b e e n re p a id , a lo n g w ith $ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 in in te re s t. D efe ndant s m oved fors um m aryj udgm ent , bas ed i n par ton a s t atut e- of- l i m i t at i ons ar gum ent . I n anal y zi ng t he undi s put ed fa ct s , t he di s t r i ct cour tdet er m i ned thatpl ai nt i ffs ’ contr actcl ai m acc rued i n t he ea r l ym ont hs of 2000, w hen the part i es al l egedl yr eac hed a pa r t l yor al and part l yw r i t t en agr eement ; and thatt he fr aud and br eac h of dutycl ai m s acc rued byM ay2001 a t th e late st, w h e n S tev e n a n d G re g o ryh a d a h e a ted a rg u m e n t ab o u t S tev e n ’s r o le i n t he pr oj ect . T her efor e, t he courtconcl uded, pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s w er e barr ed by th e a p p lic a b le s ta tu te s o f lim ita tio n s . See K an. St at . A nn. § 60- 512( 1) ( t hr ee- y ear l i m i t at i on per i od foror al - contr actcl ai m s , appl y i ng t o agr eement s w hi ch do notSee 1 C hi ls on v. C api t alB ank , 692 P. 2d 406, 408 ( K an. C t . A pp. 1984) ( s t at i ng t hata contr actw hi ch i s par t l yi n w r i t i ng and part l yor al i s i n l egal effect a n o ra l c o n tr a c t) . -3- co n tai n all m aterial term s in w ri ti n g ); 1 i d. § 60- 513( a) ( 3) ( t w o- y earl i m i t at i on p e rio d fo r f

ra u d c laim s); i d. § 60- 513( a) ( 4) ( t w o- y earl i m i t at i on per i od for “[a ] n act i on fori nj ur yt o t he r i ght s of another , notar i s i ng on contr act , and not [p rev iou sly ] en u m era ted,” w h ich a p p li es to b rea ch o f d u tyclaim s). T h e c o u rt al s o deci ded thatpl ai nt i ffs had no cl ai m of unj us tenr i chment beca us e the l oan h a d b e e n s a tis fie d . It th e re fo re g ra n te d d e fe n d a n ts ’ s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n . P lain tiffs a p p e a l, pr e se n tin g th re e iss u e s fo r re v iew : 1 . W h e th e r th e D istric t C o u rt e rre d in fin d in g th e re w a s n o t a w r i t t en agr eementbyand betw een the part i es and/ ort her e w as nota meet i ng of the mi nds as t o t he agr eementbetw een the part i es. 2. W hethert he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed bym aki ng t he fa ctual fi ndi ng t hatPl ai nt i ffs knew ors houl d have know n t hei rcaus es of act i on acc rued i n M ayof 2001 s o as t o s t ar tt he s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s t o run in r egards t o all of P l ai nti ffs’ cl ai m s. 3. W hethert he D i s t r i ctC our terr ed i n fai l i ng t o fi nd t her e had b e e n e q u i t a b l e t o l l i n g i n t h e s e c l a i ms b e t we e n t h e s e t wo b r o t h e r s w h i c h m a d e P l a i n t i ffs ’ c l a i m s t i m e l y. A p lt . B r. at 1. A s a g en era l m att er, plainti ffs also asse rtthat the d istri ct co u rt fa ile d to re s o lv e a ll in fe re n c e s in th e irfa v o r. “W e r evi ew t he gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo and a ffi r m onl yi f t he r ecor d, cons i der ed i n t he l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o t he pl ai nt i ff, es t abl i s hes no genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t , ” Ba s t i b l e v . Wey e r h a e u s e rCo . , 437 F. 3d 999, 1004-4-

( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) , and the defendanti s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm ent as a m att er o f law , F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c). W e h av e e x am ined the re co rd o n ap p ea l and rev iew ed the d istri ct co u rt ’s s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o rd e r a g a in s t th e b a c k d ro p o f p la in tiffs ’ a p p e lla te is s u e s . W e conc l ude thatt he di s t r i ctcour tpr oper l ys or t ed thr ough t he part i es ’ fac tual cont ent i ons , deci ded w hi ch fa ct s w er e mat er i al t o pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s , and vi ew ed t he undi s put ed fa ct s i n a l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o pl ai nt i ffs . A nd w e di s cern no err ori n t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s l egal det er m i nat i ons . A ccor di ngl y , w e A FFIRM for s ubs t ant i al l yt he r eas ons s t at ed byt he di s t r i ctcour ti n i t s t hor ough and thought ful m emora ndum and or derdat ed O ct ober12, 2005. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

St ephen H . A nder s on C i r cui tJ udge