Wheeler v. Blumling ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •              United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 07-1992
    D. BRUCE WHEELER,
    Plaintiff, Appellee,
    v.
    RYAN T. BLUMLING,
    Defendant, Appellant,
    PARSONS 4E, LLC; TERRY EBELS; FRANK ZARRELLI;
    RABON WOLFORD, SR.; THOMAS G. POLANSKY,
    Defendants.
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
    [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
    Before
    Torruella, Circuit Judge,
    John R. Gibson, Senior Circuit Judge,*
    and Lipez, Circuit Judge.
    Mitchell J. Rotbert, with whom Rotbert Law Group, LLC,
    was on brief for appellant.
    Laurence M. Johnson, with whom Davis, Malm & D'Agostine,
    P.C., was on brief for appellee.
    March 25, 2008
    *
    Of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    JOHN R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge.    Ryan T. Blumling
    appeals from the district court's entry of summary judgment against
    him in favor of D. Bruce Wheeler, on Wheeler's claim for breach of
    a guaranty agreement.    Blumling contends that he has two defenses
    to liability on the guaranty:       frustration of purpose of the
    contract and modification of the guaranty by oral agreement.     We
    affirm the judgment of the district court.
    Blumling is a loan broker. In March 2004, Frank Zarrelli
    of Parsons 4E, LLC, contacted Blumling for help in finding a short-
    term loan to supply money Parsons needed to buy a financial
    guaranty bond from Allianz, A.G. Parsons needed the bond to enable
    it to get bank financing for coal mining operations in Kentucky.
    Blumling went to work and located Wheeler as a possible lender for
    the short-term loan.     The note was to be secured by a security
    interest in various coal properties and by guaranties from the
    principals of Parsons, but Wheeler insisted on getting a guaranty
    from Blumling as well.   Blumling states that he told Wheeler,
    I did not think that it was appropriate for me to
    guarantee the Note, as I was merely a broker for the
    loan, but Mr. Wheeler insisted that, unless I guaranteed
    the loan, he would not lend to Parsons 4E . . . .
    Without any alternative, and being under pressure to
    perform quickly to satisfy the reported needs of Allianz,
    I advised Mr. Wheeler that I would execute a guarantee,
    provided that Mr. Wheeler understood and agreed that I
    would not thereby become liable for an amount greater
    than the principal amount loaned and that I would not be
    called upon to pay any amounts before Mr. Wheeler had
    exhausted   his   remedies   under  the   assignment   by
    foreclosing on his security interest as stated in the
    -2-
    Collateral Assignment I had arranged. Mr. Wheeler agreed
    . . . . In reliance on Mr. Wheeler's representations,
    I signed the guaranty.
    The note itself called for a rather breathtaking interest
    rate--the loan was for $625,000 to be disbursed on March 12, 2004,
    to be repaid with interest for a total of $1.4 million due on April
    24, 2004.    Though the parties dared not name the interest rate at
    oral argument, we calculate it at over 1000% per annum.          The
    guaranty Blumling signed, however, did not make him liable for that
    rate of interest, but instead provided:
    [I]n no event shall the amounts due Lender under this
    Guaranty exceed the sum of $625,000 plus interest from
    the date hereof until paid in full at 2% per month (or
    such lesser amount as shall be the maximum amount allowed
    by law) plus reasonable attorneys fees and expenses in
    connection with enforcement of this Guaranty . . . .
    There were several other clauses in the guaranty of
    particular interest in this litigation:
    (1) The guaranty recited that Blumling had a personal interest
    in the success of Parsons, that Wheeler would not make the desired
    loan to Parsons without Blumling's guaranty, and that the guaranty
    was executed to induce Wheeler to make the Parsons loan.
    (2) The guaranty also said that Wheeler might "at [his]
    option, proceed against [Blumling] without ever commencing any
    action, or ever obtaining any judgment against [Parsons] or any
    collateral for the obligations guaranteed hereunder."        A later
    clause similarly provided, "This Guaranty . . . is in no way
    -3-
    conditioned upon any requirement that [Wheeler] first attempt to
    collect or enforce any of the obligations under the Note from or by
    [Parsons] or any other party primarily or secondarily liable with
    respect thereto, or resort to any security or other means of
    obtaining payment or satisfaction of any of the obligations of
    [Parsons] to [Wheeler]. . . ."
    (3) "No provision of this Guaranty may be changed, waived or
    discharged except by an instrument in writing signed by [Wheeler]
    and [Blumling] and expressly referring to the provision of this
    Guaranty to which such instrument relates . . . ."
    (4)    The   guaranty   stated    that    it   would   be   governed   and
    construed in accordance with the law of Kentucky.
    Upon execution of the note and the guaranties, Wheeler
    disbursed   the   $625,000   as   Parsons      directed,    including   wiring
    $562,500 directly to Parsons' bond broker Wayne Price, who was
    supposed to be arranging the purchase of the bond from Allianz.
    Blumling states that although the "Allianz bond was issued in April
    2004, . . . it was not financed . . . [and] Allianz and its
    subsidiaries would not recognize it as a legitimate instrument
    issued by one or more of them."             Wayne Price and his associates
    were indicted in the Southern District of New York on charges of
    conspiracy and wire fraud.        In particular, they were accused of
    appropriating for themselves moneys their clients had paid to
    obtain bonds from a subsidiary of Allianz, A.G.                  Parsons tried
    -4-
    without success to obtain the return of its premium.
    As a result of its bond fiasco, Parsons defaulted on its
    obligation to pay Wheeler $1.4 million on April 24, 2004.                   In
    December    2004,    the    various    parties    and    guarantors    to   the
    Parsons/Wheeler      note   executed    a    "Forbearance    Agreement."     In
    exchange for an extension of time to pay, Parsons acknowledged its
    indebtedness on the note and, in Section 3 of the Forbearance
    Agreement, agreed to waive any possible defenses on the note or
    counterclaims.       Although the body of the Forbearance Agreement
    related only to Parsons's obligations, Blumling signed an attached
    signature page with the following statement: "The undersigned
    consents to the foregoing, joins in the release under Section 3
    above, and agrees that his Guaranty remains in full force and
    effect."    Parsons did not make any of the payments in accordance
    with the terms of the Forbearance Agreement.
    Wheeler brought this suit against Parsons, the other
    guarantors,    and   Blumling.        Parsons    and   the   other   guarantors
    settled, but Blumling did not.2        Wheeler moved for summary judgment
    against Blumling, which the district court granted.
    We review de novo the district court's grant of summary
    judgment.     Plumley v. S. Container, Inc., 
    303 F.3d 364
    , 369 (1st
    Cir. 2002).
    2
    Blumling stated, both in an affidavit and in his brief to
    this court, that Wheeler has not executed in any way on the
    judgment he obtained against Parsons and the other guarantors.
    -5-
    Blumling contends that under the applicable Kentucky law,
    he should be excused from performing his obligations under the
    guaranty because the misappropriation of the proceeds by the bond
    broker   frustrated   the   purpose   of   the   contract   or    rendered
    impossible Blumling's performance. Blumling's argument is properly
    characterized as one of frustration of purpose rather than of
    impossibility,3 for he argues that the value to him of the loan
    secured by the guaranty was destroyed by the defalcations of the
    bond broker.
    Actually, the value of the loaned money was not affected,
    but the proceeds of the loan were lost by the borrower.          Suffice it
    to say, none of the authorities cited by Blumling stands for the
    rule that a borrower's (or his guarantor's) obligation to repay
    borrowed money depends on the success of the venture on which he
    spent the money.      The only precedential Kentucky case on which
    Blumling relies, Frazier v. Collins, 
    187 S.W.2d 816
     (Ky. 1945),
    3
    The doctrine[s] of commercial frustration and
    impracticability [i.e., impossibility] both
    concern    the    effect     of    supervening
    circumstances upon the rights and duties of
    the   parties;   however,    with   commercial
    frustration, performance remains possible, but
    the expected value of performance to the party
    seeking to be excused has been destroyed by
    the fortuitous event which supervened to cause
    an actual, but not literal, failure of
    consideration.
    30 Richard A. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 77.95, at 596 (4th ed.
    2004).
    -6-
    rejected the frustration defense in the case before it and held
    that "when a party engages without qualification to do an act, his
    performance      is     not   excused    because       it    becomes   onerous     or
    unprofitable.         It is deemed his own fault if he does not expressly
    provide     against         contingencies       and     exempt      himself      from
    responsibility        in   certain    events."        Id.    at   818-19   (internal
    quotation marks omitted).             The district court did not err in
    rejecting Blumling's frustration of purpose defense.
    Second,        Blumling   argues    that    he    and   Wheeler   orally
    modified their contract, including the provision in the contract
    that required modifications to be in writing. He contends that the
    modified terms were that "Blumling would not be liable on his
    guaranty until such time as Wheeler had executed against Parsons
    4E's assets" and that "in any event, Blumling would not be liable
    for more than the principal amount that Wheeler had loaned to
    Parsons."        The problem with this theory is that there is no
    evidence    of    a    modification     after    the   guaranty      was   executed.
    Blumling's own affidavit alleges that he negotiated these two
    conditions with Wheeler before executing the guaranty:
    I advised Mr. Wheeler that I would execute a guarantee,
    provided that Mr. Wheeler understood and agreed that I
    would not thereby become liable for an amount greater
    than the principal amount loaned and that I would not be
    called upon to pay any amounts before Mr. Wheeler had
    exhausted   his  remedies    under  the  assignment   by
    foreclosing on his security interest as stated in the
    Collateral Assignment I had arranged. Mr. Wheeler agreed
    . . . . In reliance on Mr. Wheeler's representations, I
    signed the guaranty.
    -7-
    However, the guaranty as executed contradicts both the conditions,
    expressly providing that Blumling's liability did not depend on
    Wheeler first proceeding against the debtor, any other guarantor,
    or the collateral, and that Blumling would be liable for the
    principal     amount   plus   two    percent   interest     and     reasonable
    attorneys'    fees.     Blumling's     affidavit    says    that    he   later
    "reconfirmed" the two putative conditions with Wheeler's agent, but
    he steadfastly contends that those were the terms negotiated before
    the contract was memorialized, rather than being changes negotiated
    afterwards.       Moreover,    his   affidavit     only    states    that   he
    "reconfirmed" his understanding of the contract, not that Wheeler's
    agent agreed to any change.
    Thus, Blumling's evidence does not support a modification
    of the agreement, but rather consists of assertions of prior oral
    negotiations that contradict the written instrument he executed.
    The parol evidence rule is a rule of substantive law under which,
    [w]here the parties put their engagement in writing             all
    prior negotiations and agreements are merged in                 the
    instrument, and each is bound by its terms unless               his
    signature is obtained by fraud or the contract                   be
    reformed on the ground of fraud or mutual mistake, or           the
    contract is illegal.
    Childers & Venters, Inc. v. Sowards, 
    460 S.W.2d 343
    , 345 (Ky.
    1970).      Blumling does not argue that the whole contract was
    obtained by fraud or that the parties meant it as a sham contract;
    instead, he only wants to contradict particular terms of a contract
    which has already been performed on Wheeler's side and of which
    -8-
    Blumling has already enjoyed the benefits (fleeting though they
    were).   This is exactly what the parol evidence rule forecloses.
    See Lewis v. Owens, 
    338 F.2d 740
    , 742 (6th Cir. 1964) (Kentucky
    law).
    Since   we   conclude    that   Blumling's   defenses   are
    unavailing, we need not consider the arguments regarding whether he
    waived such defenses in the Forbearance Agreement.
    We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
    -9-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-1992

Judges: Torruella, Gibson, Lipez

Filed Date: 3/25/2008

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024