Lang v. Bank of Steele, 890141

• Citation: 449 N.W.2d 826
• Decision Date: 20 November 1989
• Docket Number: No. 890141,890141
• Parties: Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: "SUMMARY DISPOSITION, SEE NORTH DAKOTA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, RULE 35.1(a)." Ernest R. LANG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BANK OF STEELE, Defendant and Appellee. CIV.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Page 826

449 N.W.2d 826

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: "SUMMARY DISPOSITION, SEE NORTH DAKOTA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE, RULE 35.1(a)."

Ernest R. LANG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BANK OF STEELE, Defendant and Appellee.

CIV. No. 890141.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Nov. 20, 1989.

District Court, Burleigh County.

AFFIRMED.

Appeal from the District Court for Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable William F. Hodny, Judge.

Ernest R. Lang, pro se.

Kelsch, Kelsch, Ruff & Austin, Collins and Main, Mandan, for defendant and appellee; argued by Arlen M. Ruff.

MESCHKE, Justice.

Ernest Lang appealed from a judgment dismissing his claim against Bank of Steele for lack of evidence. Lang contended that facts recognized in the Bank's trial brief created "sufficient evidence" to avoid the Bank's motion for a directed verdict under NDRCivP 50(a). We conclude that there was insufficient evidence to show that the Bank wrongfully damaged Lang by failing to file a termination statement for its previously filed financing statement on Lang's property. Therefore, we affirm under NDRAppP 35.1(a)(6). Furthermore, this claim was considered and rejected in a prior lawsuit between the same parties. See Bank of Steele v. Lang, 441 N.W.2d 648, 650 (N.D.1989) and NDRCivP 13(a).