Opinion ID: 2747894
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Waiver of the NTPB provision

Text: The Gorsuch Entities finally argue for the first time on appeal that Wells Fargo waived the NTPB provision through its conduct. Because this argument was forfeited below, we review it for plain error. Richison v. Ernest Grp., Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 112728 (10th Cir. 2011). “To show plain error, a party must establish the presence of (1) error, (2) that is plain, which (3) affects substantial rights, and which (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. The Gorsuch Entities fail to demonstrate error because Wells Fargo did not waive the NTPB provision. The district court considered the circumstances surrounding the Credit Agreement but concluded Colorado law limits circumstantial inferences in the face of a clear and plainly understood provision. The Credit Agreement includes not only an NTPB provision but also provisions disclaiming implied waivers and requiring modifications to be in writing and signed. The provisions closely track the Colorado -16- Credit Agreement Statute of Frauds, which prohibits implied credit agreements, Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 38-10-124(3), and broadly defines “credit agreement” to include “[a]ny amendment of, cancellation of, waiver of, or substitution for any or all of the terms or provisions” of a credit agreement, Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 38-10-124(1)(a)(2). Colorado courts have held “the plain language of the statute . . . expressly precludes exceptions by implication or construction.” Hewitt v. Pitkin Cnty. Bank & Trust Co., 931 P.2d 456, 458 (Colo. App. 1995) (quotations omitted). Our conclusion that Wells Fargo did not waive the NTPB provision is supported by the district court’s findings, the text of the Credit Agreement, and Colorado law. The district court did not err, much less plainly err.