Kehoe v. Meetinghouse Coop ( 2000 )

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION–NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 00-1183
IN RE: ANDREW J. KEHOE; CATHERINE M. KEHOE,
Debtors,
___________________
ANDREW J. KEHOE; CATHERINE M. KEHOE,
Debtors, Appellants,
v.
MEETINGHOUSE COOPERATIVE BANK;
GARY CRUICKSHANK, TRUSTEE,
Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
Andrew J. Kehoe and Catherine M. Kehoe on brief pro se.
David J. Reier and Schnader, Harrison, Goldstein & Manello
on brief for appellee Meetinghouse Cooperative Bank.
December 11, 2000
Per Curiam. We have read carefully the record in
this case, including the briefs of the parties. We affirm
the grant of summary judgment to appellees essentially for
the reasons given by the bankruptcy court at the hearing
held on January 14, 1999. We add only the following.
The Disclosure Statement, filed by debtors with the
bankruptcy court and dated October 29, 1996, conclusively
establishes that, one month prior to entering into the
settlement agreement, the debtors were aware of the facts
whose non-disclosure they now allege induced them to make
that agreement. Their claim is therefore without merit.
Moreover, in light of this fact, the court below
committed no cognizable error in not granting debtors'
request for further discovery on this issue. See Morrisey
v. Boston Five Cents Sav. Bank, 54 F.3d 27, 35 (1st Cir.
1995) (party seeking further discovery must show, inter
alia, "a plausible basis for [a] belief that facts exist
that would likely suffice to raise a genuine and material
issue").
-2-
Finally, since appellees filed with the bankruptcy
court an accounting of all payments they claim to have
received and how those funds were credited, see Affidavit of
Philip M. O'Connor, Exh. A, they appear to have satisfied
any duty they might have had to render an accounting to
debtors. Since debtors have not brought forth any competent
evidence to challenge the accuracy of this accounting, the
entry of summary judgment was appropriate.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27(c).
-3-