 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
AgCountry Farm Credit Servicers v. Oelke8/16/2005
BR>
The Oelkes rely on Estate of Frantz v. Page, 426 N.W.2d 894, 898 (Minn. App. 1988) ("When an assignment increases the guarantor's risk beyond that to which he or she agreed, the guarantor's obligation is discharged."), review denied (Minn. Sept. 16, 1988). The Oelkes assert that the guarantee that they signed provided that proceeds from the sale of RRD's assets would go to satisfy its obligation to FCS and that their risk increased dramatically when those assets were transferred to FCS with the quitclaim deed. But their risk did not increase: FCS had the same interest in RRD's property whether it foreclosed the mortgage or acquired the property by a quitclaim deed. The district court did not err by failing to find that the Oelkes' obligation had been discharged because their risk had increased.
3. Discovery
" he trial judge has wide discretion to issue discovery orders and, absent clear abuse of that discretion, normally its order with respect thereto will not be disturbed." Shetka v. Kueppers, Kueppers, Von Feldt & Salmen, 454 N.W.2d 916, 921 (Minn. 1990).
FCS initially refused the Oelkes access to their loan file on RRD because of privacy concerns. The Oelkes moved to compel discovery. The district court dismissed the motion " ubject to [the Oelkes] obtaining written consent from ." FCS asserts that " hen the Oelkes provided written authorization from to review the file, permitted discovery" and that "at the summary judgment proceeding, the Oelkes' attorney admit he had an opportunity to review the file." The Oelkes do not refute these assertions.
The Oelkes object that access to the file was restricted to their attorney and an expert but do not explain why anyone else would have needed, or been entitled to, access to the file. They also object to a shortness of time to conduct discovery, but they did not move for a continuance, nor do they explain what harm was caused by the shortness of time. The Oelkes have not shown that the district court abused its discretion by providing them with access to FCS's file on the RRD loan only after RRD gave its consent.
No genuine issue of material fact precluded a grant of summary judgment to FCS. The Oelkes' liability was not discharged as a matter of law, and the denial of their motion to compel discovery was not an abuse of discretion.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|