JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget
- Summarized by Thomas DeCarlo , John Steinberger & Associates, PC
- 9 years 3 weeks ago
- Case Type:
- Business
- Case Status:
- Affirmed
- Citation:
- 15-1924 (6th Cir. 2017) (6th Circuit, Feb 06,2017) Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- Lower Court must follow mandate issued by appellate court. District Court cannot entertain any legal arguments or enter any orders other than specifically directed in mandate.
- Procedural context:
- Lender sued to enforce guaranty agreement. District Court initially ruled that guaranty limited guarantor's liability. On appeal, Circuit Court reversed and held that guaranty was unlimited. Circuit Court remanded case to District Court to enter judgment in favor of lender. District Court entered Judgment and guarantor appealed, claiming that District Court refused to consider additional affirmative defense. Sixth Circuit Affirmed District Court's entry of Final Judgment.
- Facts:
- Lender bought action against guarantor of loans. Guarantor asserted that guaranty was limited to $50 million and any judgment should be limited to that amount less amounts already recovered. District Court found guaranty agreement to be ambiguous and "reformed" agreement to limit guarantor's exposure to $50 million. Lender appealed and Circuit Court reversed, finding that guaranty was not ambiguous and was arms length agreement between two sophisticated parties each of whom were represented by competent counsel. Circuit Court remanded case to District Court with instructions to enter judgment for lender in full amount of obligation without limitation. On remand, guarantor attempted to raise new affirmative defenses, District Court denied guarantor's request to assert defenses, finding that mandate of Circuit Court limited District Court to entry of final judgment, and did not invite any further proceedings. District Court entered judgment in unlimited amount as directed by Circuit Court. Guarantor then appealed, claiming that District Court wrongfully refused to consider additional defenses that had initially been raised, although not pursued, prior to entry of original judgment. Circuit Court concluded that District Court correctly limited actions on remand to scope of mandate, which was to enter judgment. Lower Court is not permitted to conduct additional proceedings following issuance of mandate unless mandate specifies issues to be considered. Unconditional mandate that directed entry of judgment alone did not allow parties to raise new issues or assert new defenses.
- Judge(s):
- Keith, Batchelder & Clay
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!
