First National Bank in Durant v. Honey Creek Entertainment Corp.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that evidence of alleged fraudulent inducement by a bank officer was admissible despite the parol evidence rule and supported the jury’s verdict for the guarantor and surety. The court further held that the bank owed no legally cognizable duty to the guarantor to preserve the value of the borrower’s assets, so the negligence counterclaim failed as a matter of law. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

Holdings

1. The parol evidence rule did not bar evidence of Dufur's alleged fraudulent representations concerning the Bank's intended enforcement of the guaranty and surety agreements. The alleged statements were misrepresentations of fact concerning the Bank's intent, not inadmissible misrepresentations of law, and the evidence supported submission of the fraudulent-inducement defense to the jury.
2. Clancy's negligence counterclaim failed as a matter of law because she did not establish that the Bank owed her a legally cognizable duty to preserve the value of Honey Creek's assets. The trial court therefore erred by denying the Bank's JNOV motion on that counterclaim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Bank was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Clancy and Acme's fraudulent-inducement defense because the alleged oral representations were inadmissible under the parol evidence rule.
2. Whether Clancy's negligence counterclaim failed as a matter of law because the Bank owed her no legally cognizable duty to preserve the value of Honey Creek's assets.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded