Nevada State Bank, as of the Estate of Paul B. Sogg v. Laurence W. Ritter Gladys B. Ritter

Ninth Circuit

Nevada State Bank, as of the Estate of Paul B. Sogg v. Laurence W. Ritter Gladys B. Ritter

37 F.3d 1505, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 36409, 1994 WL 568011

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 14, 1994

Docket93-55233

StatusPublished

This text of 37 F.3d 1505 (Nevada State Bank, as of the Estate of Paul B. Sogg v. Laurence W. Ritter Gladys B. Ritter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nevada State Bank, as of the Estate of Paul B. Sogg v. Laurence W. Ritter Gladys B. Ritter, 37 F.3d 1505, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 36409, 1994 WL 568011 (9th Cir. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

37 F.3d 1505
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

NEVADA STATE BANK, as Executor of the Estate of Paul B.
Sogg, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Laurence W. RITTER; Gladys B. Ritter, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 93-55233.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Sept. 16, 1994.
Decided Oct. 14, 1994.

Before: FEINBERG,* SCHROEDER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Lawrence and Gladys Ritter appeal the district court's summary judgment in favor of Nevada State Bank, as executor of the estate of Paul Sogg, in the Bank's diversity action for enforcement of both a promissory note executed and delivered by the Ritters to Sogg and a subsequent settlement agreement.

Appellants seek a trial principally to determine that the note was without recourse. They are thus attempting to modify or add to the terms of the original note. Even if appellants could introduce evidence to modify the language of the original note without violating the parol evidence rule, they would still remain liable under the terms of the personal guaranty. This liability obtains because the clear meaning of the settlement agreement was to settle Ritter's fraud claims and leave the original security, including the personal guaranty, intact.

AFFIRMED.

*

Honorable Wilfred Feinberg, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

37 F.3d 1505
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

NEVADA STATE BANK, as Executor of the Estate of Paul B.
Sogg, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Laurence W. RITTER; Gladys B. Ritter, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 93-55233.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Sept. 16, 1994.
Decided Oct. 14, 1994.

Before: FEINBERG,* SCHROEDER, and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM**

Lawrence and Gladys Ritter appeal the district court's summary judgment in favor of Nevada State Bank, as executor of the estate of Paul Sogg, in the Bank's diversity action for enforcement of both a promissory note executed and delivered by the Ritters to Sogg and a subsequent settlement agreement.

Appellants seek a trial principally to determine that the note was without recourse. They are thus attempting to modify or add to the terms of the original note. Even if appellants could introduce evidence to modify the language of the original note without violating the parol evidence rule, they would still remain liable under the terms of the personal guaranty. This liability obtains because the clear meaning of the settlement agreement was to settle Ritter's fraud claims and leave the original security, including the personal guaranty, intact.

AFFIRMED.

*

Honorable Wilfred Feinberg, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, sitting by designation

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 F.3d 1505, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 36409, 1994 WL 568011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nevada-state-bank-as-of-the-estate-of-paul-b-sogg--ca9-1994.