Foundation Property Investments v. Ctp, LLC, 96,697.
Decision Date | 25 May 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 96,697.,96,697. |
Citation | 159 P.3d 1042 |
Parties | FOUNDATION PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, LLC, Appellee, v. CTP, LLC, Appellant. |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Joshua M. Ellwanger, of Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin LLP, of Kansas City, Missouri, for appellant.
Amy Fellows Cline and Rachael K. Pirner, of Triplett, Woolf & Garretson, LLC, of Wichita, for appellee.
Before McANANY, P.J., GREEN and CAPLINGER, JJ.
CTP, LLC (CTP) appeals from a summary judgment granted in favor of Foundation Property Investments, LLC (Foundation) in Foundation's action to foreclose a promissory note between it and CTP. This litigation arises out of a loan made by Foundation to CTP. CTP signed a promissory note for the loan. After receiving 10 late payments from CTP, Foundation accelerated the note and sued to recover the entire balance owed on the note. The ultimate question is whether Foundation waived its right to accelerate the promissory note by accepting late payments from CTP. Because we determine that Foundation waived the condition of prompt payment, we reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions to enter judgment in favor of CTP.
In April 2004, CTP, an Iowa limited liability corporation, purchased a truck stop in South Hutchinson, Kansas. As part of the transaction, CTP borrowed $96,000 from Foundation, a Kansas limited liability corporation, to purchase the truck stop. The loan was evidenced by a promissory note, which provided:
CTP paid the first four installments on or before their due date. Beginning in October 2004, however, CTP was late in making the next 10 payments. A history of the payments is as follows:
Payment Due Date Date Payment Received June 1, 2004 June 1, 2004 July 1, 2004 July 1, 2004 August 1, 2004 July 28, 2004 September 1, 2004 September 1, 2004 October 1, 2004 October 4, 2004 November 1, 2004 November 29, 2004 December 1, 2004 December 3, 2004 January 1, 2005 January 7, 2005 February 1, 2005 February 18, 2005 March 1, 2005 March 11, 2005 April 1, 2005 May 23, 2005 May 1, 2005 May 23, 2005 June 1, 2005 June 15, 2005 July 1, 2005 July 15, 2005
In a letter dated July 8, 2005, Foundation's counsel wrote a letter to CTP's manager. The letter stated that the note was in default and that Foundation was "exercising its option to declare all of the unpaid principal and interest immediately due and payable." Foundation demanded full payment of the note by July 31, 2005. In response, CTP's counsel asserted that because Foundation had continually accepted late payments, the parties had established a course of dealing permitting payments to be made beyond their contractual due dates.
On July 28, 2005, Foundation sued CTP to collect the full amount due under the note. CTP's answer alleged that Foundation had waived its right to accelerate the note due to its prior acceptance of late payments. Moreover, CTP asserted that Foundation's action was barred by the doctrines of estoppel, laches, and unclean hands.
Foundation later moved for summary judgment; in response, CTP filed a "cross-motion for summary judgment." The trial court granted Foundation's summary judgment motion. In its holding, the trial court found that the language of the note permitted Foundation to exercise the option to accelerate. The court further held that Foundation's repeated acceptance of late payments did not constitute a waiver of the option to accelerate and determined that Foundation was entitled to payment of the loan's principal in full, including accrued interest and attorney fees and costs, for a total amount of $110,975.58.
"` " State ex rel. Stovall v. Reliance Ins. Co., 278 Kan. 777, 788, 107 P.3d 1219 (2005).
The relevant facts in the present case are uncontroverted. When there is no factual dispute, appellate review of an order regarding summary judgment is de novo. Roy v. Young, 278 Kan. 244, 247, 93 P.3d 712 (2004).
CTP contends that because the promissory note was signed in Iowa, the trial court erred in not applying Iowa law. CTP relies primarily on Dunn v. General Equities of Iowa, Ltd., 319 N.W.2d 515 (Iowa 1982), for the proposition that an acceleration clause may be waived based on a previous course of dealing between the parties.
In granting Foundation's summary judgment motion, the trial court acknowledged that CTP alleged that Iowa law should apply, but did not directly address the merits of this argument. Instead, the court relied upon the Kansas authorities cited in Foundation's brief to support its conclusion that Foundation did not waive its right to accelerate payment of the note. Therefore, the trial court implicitly rejected CTP's argument that Iowa law should apply. As a result, we must determine whether the court properly applied Kansas law to the facts in this case. The determination of which state's law applies is a question of law over which this court has unlimited review. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Atchity, 259 Kan. 584, 590, 913 P.2d 162 (1996).
In determining what state's law applies to a contractual dispute, Kansas follows the Restatement First of the Conflict of Laws. Accordingly, Kansas applies the lex loci contractus doctrine and applies the law of the state where the contract is made. A contract is made where the last act necessary for its formation occurs. Novak v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 29 Kan.App.2d 526, 534, 28 P.3d 1033, rev. denied 272 Kan. 1419 (2001). "Generally the party seeking to apply the law of a jurisdiction other than the forum has the burden to present sufficient facts to show that other law should apply." Layne Christensen Co. v. Zurich Canada, 30 Kan.App.2d 128, 143-44, 38 P.3d 757 (2002). CTP contends that Iowa law governs this dispute because its manager, John Daniels, signed the note in Iowa. Daniels was the sole signatory on the note.
CTP's argument is flawed. The mere fact that the note was signed in Iowa does not mean that the contract was formed there. Closing for the purchase of the truck stop, which was the subject of the loan secured by the note, occurred in Kansas. Daniels delivered the note to Kansas for closing. The promissory note had no legal effect until the closing occurred. Additionally, CTP entered into a management services agreement with Foundation Properties Corporation (FPC), a separate legal entity from plaintiff Foundation. FPC was placed in charge of managing and operating the truck stop. While the promissory note is silent on the issue of which state's law governs, CTP's management services agreement provided that the agreement be construed in accordance with Kansas laws. CTP has failed to present sufficient facts which would warrant the application of Iowa law. As a result, the trial court properly applied Kansas law in deciding the case.
Next, CTP argues that regardless of which state's law applies, Foundation waived its right of acceleration by repeatedly accepting late payments from CTP.
Promissory notes and mortgages are contracts between the parties, and ordinary rules of construction applicable to contracts apply to them. Mark Twain Kansas City Bank v. Cates, 248 Kan. 700, 709, 810 P.2d 1154 (1991). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nautilus Ins. Co. v. Heartland Builders, LLC
...(1941) ).40 Id. (citing Simms v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 9 Kan.App.2d 640, 685 P.2d 321, 324 (1984) ).41 Found. Prop. Invs., LLC v. CTP, LLC , 37 Kan.App.2d 890, 159 P.3d 1042, 1046 (2007) (citation omitted).42 Am. Media, Inc. v. Home Indem. Co. , 232 Kan. 737, 658 P.2d 1015, 1018 (1983) (quo......
-
In re K.M.H.
... ... 194, 209-10, 4 P.3d 1149 (2000); Foundation Property Investments v. CTP, 37 Kan.App.2d 890, ... ...
-
Farrar v. Mobil Oil Corp.
...of which state's law applies is a question of law over which this court has unlimited review. Foundation Property Investments v. CTP, 37 Kan.App.2d 890, 894, 159 P.3d 1042 (2007), aff'd 286 Kan. 597, 186 P.3d 766 (2008). The district court's findings and conclusions as to the proper choice ......
-
Everest Indem. Ins. Co. v. Jake's Fireworks, Inc.
...).59 Id. (citing Simms v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 9 Kan.App.2d 640, 685 P.2d 321, 324 (1984) ).60 See Found. Prop. Invs., LLC v. CTP, LLC , 37 Kan.App.2d 890, 159 P.3d 1042, 1046 (2007) (citation omitted).61 Gerdes v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. , 713 F. Supp. 2d 1290, 1295 (D. Kan. 2010) (quoti......