Ag Acceptance Corp. v. Glinz
as assignee of Ag Services
of America, Inc., Plaintiff and Appellee
v.
Cecelia Glinz, and the
Estate of Bruce Glinz,
by and through Cecelia
Glinz, as duly appointed
representative of the
Estate, Defendants and Appellants
Judge John T. Paulson
| Appellant: | Garaas Law Firm | |
| Appellee: | Vogel Law Firm |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
1. Are there genuine issues of material fact that should have precluded summary judgment?
2. Did AG ACCEPTANCE prove it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law?
3. Did AG ACCEPTANCE prove it was entitled to a deficiency judgment [under North Dakota or Iowa law] when no notice of the disposition of collateral was afforded the GLINZES, no account made to the lower court as to the disposition of collateral, and with certain equipment still unsold?
4. Did AG ACCEPTANCE prove it was entitled to all collateral seized under lower court order?
5. Should the underlying transaction be viewed as a revolving charge accounts under North Dakota law, rather than loans?
6. Did the lower court authorize summary judgment on a legal theory that violates the public policy of North Dakota as to who can make loans or who can be involved in a revolving charge account?
7. Can AG ACCEPTANCE collect a credit charge under North Dakota law or Iowa law?
8. Can attorney fees be awarded under North Dakota law or Iowa law?
9. Does the transfer of a non-negotiable instrument assign only the amount owing on said instrument as of the date of the transfer?
10. Should the GLINZES be allowed a trial on their antitrust claims?
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. The District Court properly grant summary judgment in favor of Ag Acceptance.
A. No material factual dispute exist as to the elements of Ag Acceptance's claim against the Glinzes.
B. The Glinzes arguments respecting disposition of collateral barred in that the same were not raised at the trial court level and are without legal basis.
C. The District Court properly conclude that Ag Acceptance's collateral included all of the Glinzes' governmental agricultural program payments.
D. The District Court correctly find that there is no legal or factual basis to the Glinzes' claim that the promissory notes the Glinzes signed are unenforceable pursuant to North Dakota Century Code, Chapter 51-14 (Revolving Charge Agreements).
1. North Dakota Century Code, Chapter 51-14 apply to this case.
2. The loans constitute revolving charge accounts.
E. The Glinzes arguments respecting whether Ag Acceptance is authorized to make loans in the State of North Dakota without legal basis.
F. The trial court correctly found Ag Acceptance was entitled to recover interest at the promissory note rate.
G.The District Court properly grant summary judgment on Appellant's Sherman Act allegations.
H. Attorney fees properly awarded to Ag Acceptance.
I. The District Court properly determine Ag Acceptance has the right to enforce the promissory notes according to their terms.
J.The District Court correctly determine the assignment by Ag Services of America, Inc. of its right under the Master Promissory Notes to Ag Acceptance Corporation did not constitute a novation.
Add Docket 20030197 RSS