Court Opinion

ID: 2964405
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:25:09.216678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:55.557946
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                                     
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1049

                                BRAE ASSET FUND, L.P.,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                WELD MANAGEMENT, INC.,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                    [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                            Cyr and Lynch, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________

                                                     
                                 ____________________

             John  A. Doonan,  with whom  Doonan &  Graves, Debra  Csikos, and
             _______________              ________________  _____________
        Acquisition Management, Inc. were on brief for appellant.
        ____________________________
             Joseph K. Mackey, with whom Kearney & Gleason, P.C.  was on brief
             ________________            _______________________
        for appellee. 

                                                     
                                 ____________________

                                   December 3, 1996
                                                     
                                 ____________________

                    Per  Curiam.   Following  oral argument  and a  careful
                    Per  Curiam.
                    ___________

          review  of the briefs and the entire  record on appeal, we affirm

          the summary  judgment entered in  favor of Weld  Management, Inc.

          ("Weld"),  essentially for  the  reasons stated  by the  district

          court.         Largely on the strength of inapposite authorities,

          see, e.g., Den  Norske Bank AS v. First Nat'l  Bank of Boston, 75
          ___  ____  ___________________    ___________________________

          F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 1996); Cofman v. Acton Corp., 958 F.2d 494 (1st
                                   ______    ___________

          Cir. 1992),  appellant Brae Asset Fund,  L.P. ("Brae") asserts on

          appeal  that  the plain  literal import  of  the language  in the

          limited recourse  loan guaranty    drafted by  its predecessor in

          interest, Bank of New England, and executed by Weld's predecessor

          in interest,  E.  Denis  Walsh,  Inc.     should  be  disregarded

          because  the parties could not have intended that a loan guaranty

          be rendered  meaningless as  the district court's  interpretation

          essentially does.  Brae's argument fails. 

                    Even assuming that the  guaranty language is ambiguous,

          Brae  did not generate a trialworthy issue of material fact, see,
                                                                       ___

          e.g., Den  Norske Bank AS, 75  F.3d at 53, since  it proffered no
          ____  ___________________

          extrinsic evidence (e.g.  circumstances surrounding  negotiations

          or execution  of guaranty, "usage  of trade" evidence,  course of

          dealing) which might enable  a reasonable factfinder to determine

          that the  parties  meant  the limited  recourse  guaranty  to  be

          unlimited, as Brae urges.  See  id. at 55-59.  In fact, Brae  has
                                     ___  __

          not  so much as intimated that any such extrinsic evidence exist-

          ed, nor  indicated, for example, whether  the original guarantor,

          E. Denis Walsh,  Inc., even  owned property which  it might  have

                                          2

          mortgaged to secure its loan guaranty.  Absent extrinsic evidence

          sufficient to generate  a material issue of  fact, its opposition

          to summary judgment was unavailing.  See id.
                                               ___ __

                    Accordingly, the district  court judgment is  affirmed;
                    Accordingly, the district  court judgment is  affirmed;
                    _______________________________________________________

          costs to appellee.
          costs to appellee.
          _________________

                                          3