Vreugdenhill v. Navistar Intern. Transp. Corp.

• Decision Date: 29 November 1991
• Docket Number: No. 91-1654,91-1654
• Parties: , Bankr. L. Rep. P 74,346 Ed VREUGDENHILL, d/b/a Menning Implement, Appellant, v. NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION, formerly International Harvester Company, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 524

950 F.2d 524

22 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 530, Bankr. L. Rep. P 74,346

Ed VREUGDENHILL, d/b/a Menning Implement, Appellant, v. NAVISTAR INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION, formerly

International Harvester Company, Appellee.

No. 91-1654.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 15, 1991.

Decided Nov. 29, 1991.

Rick Johnson, Gregory, S.D., J.M. Grossenburg, Winner, S.D., for appellant.

Robert B. Anderson, Pierre, S.D., for appellee.

Before FAGG and MAGILL, Circuit Judges and ALSOP, ^* Chief Judge.

ALSOP, Chief Judge.

This case arises out of plaintiff-appellant's suit for damages against defendant-appellee for failure to accept returned parts in violation of South Dakota law. Ed Vreugdenhill, a former International Harvester dealer in equipment and parts, appeals the district court's ¹ grant of summary judgment in favor of Navistar International Transportation Corporation, formerly International Harvester Company ("IHC"). We affirm.

In January 1983, Vreugdenhill entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings and scheduled approximately $500,000 in property, including the parts which he contends IHC refused to accept. In March 1983, pursuant to a stipulated settlement, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of South Dakota entered an order providing that Vreugdenhill would submit an inventory list of all parts to be returned to IHC, that IHC would review the list, accept those parts Vreugdenhill shipped to IHC, and would apply any credits resulting from this shipment to the indebtedness Vreugdenhill might owe IHC.

Vreugdenhill alleged that IHC failed to comply with the March 1983 order, and in July 1983 he moved for an Order to Show Cause mandating that IHC comply with the order. The bankruptcy court indefinitely continued Vreugdenhill's hearing on the motion because the parties represented they had reached a settlement of the issue. In October 1983, IHC sent a letter to Vreugdenhill refusing to accept any more parts, and shortly thereafter, Vreugdenhill's Chapter 11 proceeding was converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding.

A trustee was appointed to administer Vreugdenhill's estate. Vreugdenhill had not scheduled at this time, nor did he ever schedule, his potential claim against IHC for failure to accept parts under South Dakota law. Vreugdenhill alleges, however, that he informed the trustee of the potential claim against IHC informally and requested that the trustee pursue the claim. Eventually, the trustee auctioned off the disputed parts, Vreugdenhill was discharged as debtor, and the bankruptcy proceeding was closed.

At the district court level in the present action, Vreugdenhill argued that the trustee formally abandoned the claim against IHC when the trustee formally abandoned several other unrelated claims. The district court decided that all issues concerning the return of parts were fully resolved in the prior bankruptcy proceeding and that the trustee never abandoned the claim against IHC for failure to accept parts.

We use the same standard as the trial court in reviewing the entry of summary judgment. Stokes v. Lokken, 644 F.2d 779, 782 (8th Cir.1981). Summary judgment may be granted where "no genuine issue as to any material fact [exists] and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Additionally, all facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion of summary judgment, and the opposing party must be given the benefit of all reasonable inferences. Vette Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 612 F.2d 1076, 1077 (8th Cir.1980).

On appeal, Vreugdenhill concedes that the...