The Bank counterclaimed against Shipston and cross- claimed against Esselte, seeking a declaratory judgment upholding the conveyance to Esselte. The parties' reciprocal discovery established the facts in Part I.A., supra. Because those facts were not in dispute in any material respect, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment on all issues. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same legal standards that bound the district court. In making this determination, we view all evidence in the light most favorable to the non- moving party.
Summary judgment is appropriate in cases in which there is no genuine issue of material fact.
The district court found that the conveyance from the Bank to Esselte was invalid, and set it aside. In so doing, the court found that the Bank exceeded its authority under the security deed, and that Esselte had constructive, if not actual, knowledge that the Bank had no authority to convey the property. Because Esselte knew that the conveyance was unauthorized, the court reasoned, it should not get the benefit of the conveyance. Setting aside the conveyance has two consequences. First, because the court set aside the warranty deed, Esselte has no claim to damages for breach of the warranties in the deed.