Ag Acceptance Corp. v. Glinz
Citation | 684 N.W.2d 632,2004 ND 154 |
Decision Date | 26 July 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 20030197.,20030197. |
Parties | AG ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, as assignee of Ag Services of America, Inc., Plaintiff and Appellee v. Cecelia GLINZ, and the Estate of Bruce Glinz, by and through Cecelia Glinz, as duly appointed representative of the Estate, Defendants and Appellants. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota |
Jon R. Brakke, Vogel Law Firm, Fargo, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee.
Jonathan T. Garaas, Garaas Law Firm, Fargo, N.D., for defendants and appellants.
[¶ 1] Cecelia Glinz and the Estate of Bruce Glinz appealed from a summary judgment awarding Ag Acceptance Corporation ("Ag Acceptance") judgment in the amount of $238,874 on a promissory note. We affirm.
[¶ 2] Cecelia Glinz and her husband, Bruce Glinz, ran a farming operation. On August 15, 1997, the Glinzes signed a "Master Promissory Note" payable to Ag Services of America, Inc. ("Ag Services") to finance their 1998 crop. The note was in the amount of $750,000 with interest at 2.75 percent above the prime rate. All principal and interest was due on January 15, 1999. The note was secured by security agreements covering personal property, including farm products, equipment, government payments, and proceeds. In addition, because a portion of the proceeds were to be used to purchase agricultural supplies from Ag Services, the parties executed a document entitled "Customer Pricing Agreement, Program Fee Agreement, Release, and Disclaimer of Warranties" outlining the terms of any sales by Ag Services to the Glinzes.
[¶ 3] On October 20, 1997, Ag Services assigned its rights under the note to Ag Acceptance. On March 30, 1998, the Glinzes signed a supplement to the note increasing the principal amount of the note to $1,300,000. This supplement to the note referred to the prior assignment of the note to Ag Acceptance.
[¶ 4] On September 22, 1998, the Glinzes signed a Master Promissory Note in the amount of $1,300,000 payable to Ag Services to finance their 1999 crop. The interest rate was 2.75 percent above the prime rate and all principal and interest was due on January 15, 2000. The Glinzes again executed security agreements on personal property and a customer pricing agreement. On February 22, 1999, Ag Services assigned its rights under the note to Ag Acceptance.
[¶ 5] Bruce Glinz died in September 1999. Cecelia Glinz was named personal representative of his estate.
[¶ 6] In February 2000, Ag Acceptance brought this action against Cecelia Glinz and the Estate of Bruce Glinz alleging the notes were in default and the Glinzes owed $859,318.31, with interest accruing at the rate of $246.75 per day. Ag Acceptance sought immediate delivery of all collateral and a deficiency judgment. Cecelia and the Estate answered, alleging that the notes were not loans of money but constituted revolving charge agreements under N.D.C.C. ch. 51-14 and that only the amounts owed at the time the notes were assigned to Ag Acceptance were due and owing. Cecelia Glinz claimed any funds advanced after the notes were assigned constituted unsecured loans on an open account to Bruce Glinz personally, and were not covered by the notes or security agreements.
[¶ 7] Ag Acceptance took possession of and sold the collateral. As a result, the 1997 note was paid in full, and Ag Acceptance sought a deficiency judgment in the amount of $232,579.93, plus $38.73 interest per diem, on the 1998 note. Both sides moved for summary judgment, and the trial court denied Glinzes' motion for summary judgment and granted Ag Acceptance's motion for summary judgment. Judgment in favor of Ag Acceptance in the amount of $238,874.08 was entered on May 1, 2003. Cecelia Glinz and the Estate of Bruce Glinz (collectively "Glinz") have appealed.
[¶ 8] This case comes to us in the posture of an appeal from a summary judgment. We outlined our standard of review of appeals from a summary judgment in Zuger v. State, 2004 ND 16, ¶¶ 7-8, 673 N.W.2d 615 (citations omitted):
[¶ 9] Ag Acceptance argues, and the trial court concluded, that the written agreements between the parties constitute a traditional loan of money secured by personal property. Glinz argues the agreement is a revolving charge account under N.D.C.C. ch. 51-14 between the Glinzes and Ag Services, and that any sales made to the Glinzes after the notes were assigned by Ag Services to Ag Acceptance were made to Bruce Glinz personally on an open account. Glinz therefore argues any transactions occurring after February 19, 1999, were not made under the notes, are not covered by the security agreements, and therefore are owed by Bruce Glinz personally on an open account, with an interest rate of six percent. Glinz further argues that Ag Acceptance's failure to comply with statutory requirements for revolving charge agreements under N.D.C.C. ch. 51-14 precludes the collection of certain fees and interest charges.
[¶ 10] Initially, the parties dispute which state's law governs their agreements. The promissory notes contain choice of law clauses providing the agreements are deemed to have been made in Iowa and that Iowa law is to govern their interpretation. Ag Acceptance argues N.D.C.C. ch. 51-14 is therefore inapplicable, and the agreements must be construed under Iowa law. Glinz argues there are strong public policy reasons to apply North Dakota law in this case, and N.D.C.C. ch. 51-14 should control. For purposes of this case we will assume, without deciding, that North Dakota law applies.
[¶ 11] The trial court concluded the parties' agreement was for a loan, not a revolving charge agreement under N.D.C.C. ch. 51-14. Glinz contends the agreement in this case falls within the definition of "revolving charge agreement" under the statute. "Revolving charge agreement" and other related relevant terms are defined in N.D.C.C. § 51-14-01:
A "loan of money" is defined in N.D.C.C. § 47-14-01:
A loan of money is a contract by which one delivers a sum of money to another and the latter agrees to return...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wfnd, LLC v. Fargo Marc, LLC
...v. Wishek Pub. Sch. Dist., 150 N.W.2d 840, 843 (N.D.1967). Although the interpretation of a contract is a question of law, Ag Acceptance Corp. v. Glinz, 2004 ND 154, ¶ 12, 684 N.W.2d 632, whether a party has breached a contract is a finding of fact that will not be reversed on appeal unless......
-
Bernabucci v. Huber
...if the language of the agreement is ambiguous and the parties' intentions cannot be determined from the writing alone. Ag Acceptance Corp. v. Glinz, 2004 ND 154, ¶ 12, 684 N.W.2d 632. An unambiguous contract is particularly amenable to summary judgment. Garofalo v. St. Joseph's Hosp., 2000 ......
-
Peoples State Bank v. Molstad Excavating, 20050444.
...to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the time of contracting. N.D.C.C. § 9-07-03; Ag Acceptance Corp. v. Glinz, 2004 ND 154, ¶ 12, 684 N.W.2d 632. "Construction of a written contract to determine its legal effect is a question of law for the court to decide......
-
Elec. Books Antitrust Litig. Tex. v. Penquin Grp. (Usa) Inc., 11 MD 2293 (DLC)
...1 of the Sherman Act. And North Dakota courts look to federal antitrust law in interpreting the NDUSSA. See Ag Acceptance Corp. v. Glinz, 684 N.W.2d 632, 639 (N.D. 2004) (applying federal case law to determine whether a tying arrangement was illegal under the NDUSAA). The NDUSSA provides fo......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc. , 49 A.D.3d 571, 854 N.Y.S.2d 446 (N.Y.A.D., 2 Dept., 2008), §21.413 AG Acceptance Corp. v. Glinz, 684 N.W.2d 632, 2004 N.D. 154 (2004), §2.400 Agha v. Rational Software Corporation, 252 F.Supp.2d 1074, (D.Or., 2003), §25.201 Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. Du P......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc. , 49 A.D.3d 571, 854 N.Y.S.2d 446 (N.Y.A.D., 2 Dept., 2008), §21.413 AG Acceptance Corp. v. Glinz, 684 N.W.2d 632, 2004 N.D. 154 (2004), §2.400 Agha v. Rational Software Corporation, 252 F.Supp.2d 1074, (D.Or., 2003), §25.201 Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. Du P......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Glen Oaks Village Owners, Inc. , 49 A.D.3d 571, 854 N.Y.S.2d 446 (N.Y.A.D., 2 Dept., 2008), §21.413 AG Acceptance Corp. v. Glinz, 684 N.W.2d 632, 2004 N.D. 154 (2004), §2.400 Agha v. Rational Software Corporation, 252 F.Supp.2d 1074, (D.Or., 2003), §25.201 Agrofollajes, S.A. v. E.I. Du P......
-
Best evidence rule
...(2004); West Point Marine, Inc. v. Prange, 812 N.E.2d 1016, 286 Ill. Dec 1, 349 Ill. App.3d 1010 (2004); AG Acceptance Corp. v. Glinz , 684 N.W.2d 632, 2004 N.D. 154 (2004); Pittman v. Pittman, 139 S.W.3d 134, 84 Ark. App. 293 (2003). 37 Advanzeon Solutions, Inc. v. State ex rel. Florida De......