Bird v. Coleman, Nos. 82573

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
Writing for the CourtSIMMS; KAUGER
Citation1997 OK 44,939 P.2d 1123
Decision Date01 April 1997
Docket Number83005,Nos. 82573
PartiesWayne BIRD and Carol Bird, Appellees, v. Robert H. COLEMAN, Appellant.

Page 1123

939 P.2d 1123
1997 OK 44
Wayne BIRD and Carol Bird, Appellees,
v.
Robert H. COLEMAN, Appellant.
Nos. 82573, 83005.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
April 1, 1997.
As Amended April 15, 1997.

Ruston C. Welch, Hastie, McCutcheon and Maye, Oklahoma City, for Appellees.

W. Dan Nelson, MaryGaye LeBoueuf, Oklahoma City, David L. Kearney, Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens, Oklahoma City, for Appellant.

SIMMS, Justice:

On certiorari we are asked to determine whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees, the Birds. Appellant Coleman contends the trial court's order was premature as material fact questions concerning his defenses to plaintiffs' action were controverted and directly at issue. Coleman additionally argues that the trial court's holding in favor of Birds on Coleman's counterclaim is erroneous as their motion for summary judgment did not include the counterclaim and Coleman's allegations therein had not been controverted or even addressed by Birds.

Coleman contends the trial court erred by treating this action as if it were brought to enforce the terms of a note for a loan of money and refusing to consider the underlying transaction which both sides agreed was a contractual relationship. In so doing, the trial court (and in turn the Court of Civil Appeals) refused to consider his contractual defenses and counterclaim to an action brought against him for breach of contract.

We agree with Coleman. We vacate the Court of Civil Appeals' decision affirming the trial court's order denying Coleman's motion for new trial, motion to vacate and motion to reconsider. The judgment of the trial court in favor of Birds is reversed and the matter is remanded for further consideration. Certiorari was previously granted.

In April of 1987, Birds conveyed all their outstanding stock in Moon-Petro, Inc., an oilfield chemical company, to Coleman for $800,000, consisting of $300,000 down and $125,000 a year for the next five years. The parties did not have a written contract incorporating all the terms of their agreement. A draft was prepared by the Birds but it was never executed. Pursuant to their oral agreement, Coleman paid Birds $300,000 and took possession of the business in May, 1987. Subsequently, Coleman signed a promissory note which reflected the outstanding balance owed under the oral contract in favor of Birds for the principal sum of $500,000 to be paid in annual payments of $125,000. Coleman made all the payments required under the oral contract, as evidenced by the note, from 1988 until 1990 when he withheld $60,000 from the last payment and tendered the balance to Birds.

Page 1125

Coleman claimed that he retained the $60,000 as a setoff because when he attempted to sell certain Texas real property of the corporation's to a third party, he discovered that contrary to representations by the Birds, it was encumbered by liens and the corporation did not have marketable title. Coleman alleged that he was then sued by the third party and was forced to spend approximately $60,000 to clear title to the property.

The Birds, who still held the note, gave notice to Coleman that they would not accept any setoff and when Coleman was not forthcoming with the $60,000, they sued him for defaulting under the terms of the note seeking the balance due, attorney fees and costs.

Before Coleman filed his answer, Birds moved for summary judgment asserting the uncontroverted facts established that Colemans had executed and delivered the note, that there was a balance due on the note for which demand had been made for payment, but Coleman was in default.

Later Coleman answered and set forth the affirmative defenses of fraud and failure of consideration and he counterclaimed against the Birds for fraud, breach of contract and failure of consideration. Coleman admitted that he signed the note as consideration for Birds selling him all the outstanding shares of the corporation and also, he asserted, all its assets. He alleged that Birds breached the contract by failing to convey free and clear title to the subject property. In his counterclaim, Coleman asserted that the Birds sold him all the stock of the corporation and all its assets and fraudulently represented to him that the subject property was owned free and clear of any encumbrances and the corporation had marketable title. He alleged the Birds knew at that time the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 practice notes
  • Mendus v. Morgan & Associates, PC, No. 92,418.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • June 29, 1999
    ...be uncontroverted if reasonable persons may draw different conclusions from these facts summary judgment must be denied. Bird v. Coleman, 1997 OK 44, 939 P.2d 1123. Summary judgment is proper only if the record reveals uncontroverted material facts failing to support any legitimate inferenc......
  • Boyle v. Asap Energy, Inc., Case Number: 112682
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • October 24, 2017
    ...130 ("We have consistently held that summary judgment should be denied where there are controverted material facts.").14 Bird v. Coleman , 1997 OK 44, 939 P.2d 1123, 1127 ("Even when basic facts are undisputed, motions for summary judgment should be denied if, under the evidence, reasonable......
  • Payne v. Kerns, Case No. 116,978
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • May 12, 2020
    ...if, under the evidence, reasonable persons might reach different inferences or conclusions from the undisputed facts. Bird v. Coleman , 1997 OK 44, ¶20, 939 P.2d 1123. It is not the duty of the appellate court on review to make first-instance determinations of disputed law or fact issues. B......
  • Atwood v. Atwood, No. 94,393.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • April 3, 2001
    ...be controverted, if reasonable persons may draw different conclusions from these facts summary judgment must be denied. Bird v. Coleman, 1997 OK 44, 939 P.2d 1123. Summary judgment is proper only if the record reveals uncontroverted material facts failing to support any legitimate inference......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
24 cases
  • Mendus v. Morgan & Associates, PC, No. 92,418.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • June 29, 1999
    ...be uncontroverted if reasonable persons may draw different conclusions from these facts summary judgment must be denied. Bird v. Coleman, 1997 OK 44, 939 P.2d 1123. Summary judgment is proper only if the record reveals uncontroverted material facts failing to support any legitimate inferenc......
  • Boyle v. Asap Energy, Inc., Case Number: 112682
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • October 24, 2017
    ...130 ("We have consistently held that summary judgment should be denied where there are controverted material facts.").14 Bird v. Coleman , 1997 OK 44, 939 P.2d 1123, 1127 ("Even when basic facts are undisputed, motions for summary judgment should be denied if, under the evidence, reasonable......
  • Payne v. Kerns, Case No. 116,978
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • May 12, 2020
    ...if, under the evidence, reasonable persons might reach different inferences or conclusions from the undisputed facts. Bird v. Coleman , 1997 OK 44, ¶20, 939 P.2d 1123. It is not the duty of the appellate court on review to make first-instance determinations of disputed law or fact issues. B......
  • Atwood v. Atwood, No. 94,393.
    • United States
    • United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma
    • April 3, 2001
    ...be controverted, if reasonable persons may draw different conclusions from these facts summary judgment must be denied. Bird v. Coleman, 1997 OK 44, 939 P.2d 1123. Summary judgment is proper only if the record reveals uncontroverted material facts failing to support any legitimate inference......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT