Opinion ID: 1619964
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Radloff v. First American National Bank

Text: Respondent filed an action on behalf of Steven and Barbara Radloff in May of 1988 against First American National Bank of St. Cloud, N.A. (First American) and First Farm Corporation, Inc. (First Farm), and two organizations for which First American was allegedly a managerial agent, Royalton Partners and Country Fresh Produce. Although the complaint named all four entities, only First American was served. The claims involved events surrounding the Radloffs' 1985 bankruptcy and alleged that First American breached its lending contracts, conspired to deceive the Radloffs, breached its fiduciary obligations to the Radloffs, and committed acts of trespass, deceit, fraud, economic coercion, outrage, contract interference, and prospective economic advantage interference. The complaint was amended three times to include additional claims. In September of 1989, the trial court issued an order which, inter alia, required additional parties to be added no later than October 22, 1989. Because respondent failed to serve Royalton Partners and Country Fresh Produce, they were dismissed with prejudice from the lawsuit in December of 1989. Respondent moved to amend the complaint a fourth time in order to add a RICO claim in March of 1990, one month before the close of discovery. The trial court denied the motion and in the same order denied defendant's request to join First American Farm Credit Company (Farm Credit) as a defendant since Farm Credit, although included as a defendant in the amended complaints, had not been served prior to the October cut-off date. Summary judgment was granted for the defendants on two of the claims alleging personal injury. [5] Respondent moved the court to take judicial notice of a Minnesota Supreme Court case which affirmed the burglary conviction of a potential witness, the First American employee who had overseen the Radloffs' farming operations. The trial court denied the motion finding the assertion that the court should take judicial notice of a 22-year old burglary conviction of a witness highly improper. [6] The remaining defendants, First American and First Farm, moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims. In his memorandum opposing summary judgment, respondent stated that many of the original claims against the defendants had been withdrawn when he failed to include them in a court-ordered damage study submitted several months earlier. This was the first notice to the court and the defendants that these claims had been abandoned. At the summary judgment hearing, the court raised the issue of whether the Radloffs' claim against First American should be referred back to the bankruptcy court as a claim extant at the time of the bankruptcy or whether the bankruptcy trustee's abandonment of the claim was final. The next day, July 12, 1990, the trial court placed an ex parte telephone call to Jean Didier, counsel for First American, to discuss tabs which had fallen off First American's exhibits. The trial court asked Didier's opinion on the abandonment, and Didier responded that she agreed with respondent that the bankruptcy trustee's abandonment was final. The trial court granted summary judgment on all remaining counts on July 19, 1990. [7] In so ruling, the trial court adopted the position advocated by respondent  that the abandonment of the claim by the trustee was final and irrevocable. [8] Respondent subsequently learned of the ex parte conversation between the court and Didier when First American submitted a timesheet noting the July 12 telephone call as part of the supporting documentation for its motion for disbursements and attorney fees. Respondent brought up the ex parte conversation during a hearing on September 17, 1990, and asked that the issue of costs and disbursements be postponed pending depositions regarding the contact. The trial court denied the postponement. On October 2, 1990 the trial court issued an order finding that numerous claims, motions and positions taken by respondent were frivolous and in bad faith including respondent's insufficient service of Royalton Partners and Country Fresh Produce, the attempt to join Farm Credit, the RICO and personal injury claims and respondent's failure to unambiguously withdraw the claims he was no longer pursuing. [9] The court sanctioned respondent by awarding attorney fees of $22,037 against respondent and the Radloffs, with an additional $6,104.37 in costs and disbursements awarded only against the Radloffs. [10] Respondent appealed both the July summary judgment order and the October sanctions order, and both were upheld by the court of appeals. [11] Apparently unwilling to accept the trial court's order of summary judgment, affirmed by the court of appeals, respondent sought to reopen the matter based upon the trial court's ex parte communication with opposing counsel, a communication the trial court acknowledged was inappropriate but which in fact resulted in a ruling favorable to respondent. The motion was denied. [12] The court noted that respondent had raised the issue during the appeal of the summary judgment, thereby exhausting his right of appeal and leaving the trial court without jurisdiction of the matter. [13] Respondent sought to appeal but review was denied by both the court of appeals and this court. [14] On April 1, 1993, respondent filed another lawsuit on the Radloff matter, this time in the U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, against First American, First Farm, and Linda Sinotte in her official capacity as court administrator for the Seventh Judicial District. Returning again to the trial court's ex parte communication of almost three years earlier, respondent claimed that Sinotte had failed to include documentation of the ex parte discussion between Didier and the trial court judge when she certified the record to the appellate court. Again the defendants moved for summary judgment, and again it was granted. [15] The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment. [16] Respondent's motion for leave to file an untimely petition for rehearing en banc was denied. [17] Respondent's subsequent motion for clarification was also denied. [18]