Ginter v. Palmer and Co.
Decision Date | 21 August 1978 |
Docket Number | No. C-1257,C-1257 |
Citation | 196 Colo. 203,585 P.2d 583 |
Parties | Carl M. GINTER, Jr., Petitioner, v. PALMER AND COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation, Respondent, |
Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
McCamant & Johnston, David C. Johnston, Paonia, for petitioner.
Brown & Brown, James D. Brown, Delta, for respondent.
Carl M. Ginter, Jr., plaintiff, brought this action against Palmer and Company, defendant, seeking a declaratory judgment adjudicating the respective rights of the parties in certain shares of the defendant corporation's stock. After the complaint and answer were filed, the defendant, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 56, moved for a summary judgment on the grounds that no genuine issue of any material fact existed and that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The district court granted the motion. The court of appeals affirmed on appeal. Ginter v. Palmer and Company, Colo.App., 566 P.2d 1358 (1977). We granted certiorari and now reverse and return the matter to the court of appeals for remand to the district court with directions for trial on the merits.
The articles of incorporation of the defendant corporation provide, in pertinent part:
"In the event of the death of a stockholder the corporation shall have the option to purchase his stock . . . on the basis of the book value as of the date of death."
Dolorosa Ginter, a stockholder of the corporation, died and bequeathed two-thirds of her stock, or the proceeds thereof should the corporation exercise its option, to the plaintiff. The defendant corporation decided to exercise its option and determined that the book value of the stock was $1.91 per share. The plaintiff refused to convey the stock to the corporation and initiated this action.
In his complaint, the plaintiff alleged, in part, that: (1) the true book value of the stock exceeded $1.91 per share and was believed to be in excess of $20.00 per share; (2) the $1.91 per share book value was determined on the basis of arbitrary and capricious figures and was based upon the management's decision to fix low book value to unjustly enrich themselves; and (3) the intent of the incorporators was that book value bear some relationship to actual asset value.
In support of its motion for summary judgment, the defendant corporation submitted an affidavit of its manager and executive officer. The affidavit declared:
A copy of the corporation's balance sheet which indicated that the book value was $1.91 per share was attached to the affidavit.
The summary judgment procedure provided in C.R.C.P. 56 permits prompt disposition of actions which lack a genuine issue of material fact. The rule is designed to permit the parties to pierce the formal allegations of the pleadings and save the time and expense connected with a trial when, as a matter of law, based on undisputed facts, one party could not prevail. Abrahamsen v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 177 Colo. 422, 494 P.2d 1287 (1972); Terrell v. Heller & Co., 165 Colo. 463, 439 P.2d 989 (1968); O. C. Kinney, Inc. v. Paul Hardeman, Inc., 151 Colo. 571, 379 P.2d 628 (1963).
Summary judgment, however, is a drastic remedy which denies litigants their right to trial and is never warranted except on a clear showing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Abrahamsen v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Corp., supra; Primock v. Hamilton, 168 Colo. 524, 452 P.2d 375 (1969); Credit Investment & Loan Co. v. Guaranty Bank & Trust Co., 143 Colo. 393, 353 P.2d 1098 (1960). The action must proceed to trial if a genuine issue of material fact exists. The burden of establishing the lack of a triable issue, therefore, is upon the moving party, and all doubts must be resolved against him. Primock v. Hamilton, supra; O'Herron v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 156 Colo. 164, 397 P.2d 227 (1964).
The trial court relied upon the following portion of C.R.C.P. 56(e) in reaching its decision:
(Emphasis added.)
The trial court found that "no Affidavits or other response was provided by the Plaintiff in accordance with Rule 56," and concluded that no genuine issue of any material fact existed.
Once a movant makes a convincing showing that genuine...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Williams v. White Mountain Const. Co., Inc.
...Great Western Sugar Co., 698 P.2d 769 (Colo.), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1022, 105 S.Ct. 3489, 87 L.Ed.2d 623 (1985); Ginter v. Palmer & Co., 196 Colo. 203, 585 P.2d 583 (1978). Summary judgment should not be granted where there appears to be any controversy concerning material facts. E.g., Bl......
-
Austin v. Litvak
...of summary judgment motions, reliance on unverified allegations in pleadings is wholly insufficient. E.g., Ginter v. Palmer & Co., 196 Colo. 203, 585 P.2d 583 (1978); O'Herron v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 156 Colo. 164, 397 P.2d 227 (1964). Accordingly, the plaintiffs may ......
-
Camacho v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
...establishing the nonexistence of a genuine issue of material fact. Urban v. Beloit Corp., 711 P.2d 685 (Colo.1985); Ginter v. Palmer & Co., 196 Colo. 203, 585 P.2d 583 (1978). The Camachos proffered evidence that the Honda Hawk motorcycle could have been equipped with crash bars which would......
-
Neves v. Potter
...entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., 759 P.2d 1336, 1339-40 (Colo.1988); Ginter v. Palmer & Co., 196 Colo. 203, 205, 585 P.2d 583, 584 (1978). The moving party has the burden of establishing the lack of a triable factual issue, and all doubts as to the ex......
-
Rule 56 SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND RULINGS ON QUESTIONS OF LAW.
...Co., 177 Colo. 422, 494 P.2d 1287 (1972); People in Interest of F.L.G., 39 Colo. App. 194, 563 P.2d 379 (1977); Ginter v. Palmer & Co., 196 Colo. 203, 585 P.2d 583 (1978); Wright v. Bayly Corp., 41 Colo. App. 313, 587 P.2d 799 (1978). This rule was designed to enable parties and courts to e......
-
A Litigator's Guide to Summary Judgments
...1302 (July 1984) (App. No. 82CA1173, annc'd 5/31/84). 10. 151 Colo. 571, 379 P.2d 628 (1963). 11. Id. at 630. 12. Id. at 631. 13. 196 Colo. 203, 585 P.2d 583 (1978). 14. Id. at 584. 15. Moses v. Moses, 180 Colo. 397, 505 P.2d 1302 (1973). 16. Sullivan v. Davis, 172 Colo. 490, 474 P.2d 218 (......
-
Fdic-insured Bank Failures: Let the Makers Beware
...v. Catrett, 106 S.Ct., 2548, 2553 (1986); Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Keenan, 731 P.2d 708, 712 (Colo. 1987); Ginter v. Palmer & Co., 585 P.2d 583 (Colo. 1978). 5. FDIC v. Palermo, 815 F.2d 1329, 1334 (10th Cir. 1987); FDIC v. Blue Rock Shopping Center, Inc., 766 F.2d 744, 747 (3rd Cir. 1......