Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 84 views

    Mfi-Dplh, LLC v. Jesse Ingram, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment for MFI-DPLH, LLC in its breach of escrow agreement and negligence claims against Jesse Henry Ingram and Ingram & Associates, LLC. The appellate court found that the district court correctly declined to consider evidence external to the unambiguous escrow agreement between the parties when determining the intent in forming the agreement. As the escrow agreement was unambiguous, parol evidence was inadmissible and the district court properly concluded there was no genuine dispute of material fact.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Mfi-Dplh, LLC v. Jesse Ingram, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    84 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment for MFI-DPLH, LLC in its breach of escrow agreement and negligence claims against Jesse Henry Ingram and Ingram & Associates, LLC. The appellate court found that the district court correctly declined to consider evidence external to the unambiguous escrow agreement between the parties when determining the intent in forming the agreement. As the escrow agreement was unambiguous, parol evidence was inadmissible and the district court properly concluded there was no genuine dispute of material fact.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-03-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-1588

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment for MFI-DPLH, LLC in its breach of escrow agreement and negligence claims against Jesse Henry Ingram and Ingram & Associates, LLC. The appellate court found that the district court correctly declined to consider evidence external to the unambiguous escrow agreement between the parties when determining the intent in forming the agreement. As the escrow agreement was unambiguous, parol evidence was inadmissible and the district court properly concluded there was no genuine dispute of material fact.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    84 views3 pages

    Mfi-Dplh, LLC v. Jesse Ingram, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment for MFI-DPLH, LLC in its breach of escrow agreement and negligence claims against Jesse Henry Ingram and Ingram & Associates, LLC. The appellate court found that the district court correctly declined to consider evidence external to the unambiguous escrow agreement between the parties when determining the intent in forming the agreement. As the escrow agreement was unambiguous, parol evidence was inadmissible and the district court properly concluded there was no genuine dispute of material fact.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-1588

    MFI-DPLH, LLC,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    JESSE HENRY INGRAM; INGRAM & ASSOCIATES, LLC; JESSE H.
    INGRAM, PLLC; JESSE H. INGRAM & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, a/k/a
    Jesse H. Ingram, PLLC,
    Defendants - Appellants.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.
    William D. Quarles, Jr., District
    Judge. (1:09-cv-02358-WDQ)

    Submitted:

    February 29, 2012

    Decided:

    March 2, 2012

    Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jesse Henry Ingram, Appellant Pro Se; Damani K. Ingram, INGRAM &
    ASSOCIATES, LLC, Columbia, Maryland, for Appellants.
    Gary C.
    Adler, ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jesse
    (Defendants)
    partial

    Henry

    Ingram

    appeal

    summary

    the

    judgment

    and

    Ingram

    district

    for

    &

    Associates,

    courts

    MFI-DPLH,

    LLC

    order

    LLC

    granting

    (Plaintiff)

    on

    Plaintiffs breach of escrow agreement and negligence claims. *


    On appeal, Defendants sole argument is that the district court
    erred

    by

    failing

    Defendants

    escrow

    that

    was

    there

    whether

    to

    agreement

    no

    Defendants

    consider

    genuine
    were

    certain

    with
    issue

    bound

    by

    documents

    Plaintiff
    of

    before

    material

    the

    external

    fact

    agreement.

    to

    concluding
    regarding
    Finding

    no

    error, we affirm.
    We review de novo a district courts grant of summary
    judgment, viewing the facts and the reasonable inferences drawn
    therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
    Emmett v. Johnson, 532 F.3d 291, 297 (4th Cir. 2008); see also
    Anderson

    v.

    Liberty

    Lobby,

    Inc.,

    477

    U.S.

    242,

    255

    (1986).

    Summary judgment is proper if the movant shows that there is no


    genuine

    dispute

    as

    to

    any

    material

    fact

    entitled to judgment as a matter of law.


    56(a).

    and

    the

    movant

    is

    Fed. R. Civ. P.

    If the moving party sufficiently supports its motion for

    The district court granted Plaintiffs motion to


    voluntarily dismiss the claims remaining following the partial
    grant of summary judgment, and the court entered final judgment
    against Defendants.

    summary

    judgment,

    the

    nonmoving

    party

    must

    there are genuine issues of material fact.

    demonstrate

    that

    Emmett, 532 F.3d at

    297.
    Ingram
    considered

    parol

    asserts

    that

    evidence

    in

    the

    district

    construing

    court
    the

    intent

    parties in entering into the escrow agreement.


    evidence

    is

    contract.

    admissible

    only

    if

    there

    is

    should

    have

    of

    the

    Generally, parol
    ambiguity

    in

    the

    Thomas v. Cap. Med. Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., 985 A.2d 51,

    64 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2009); see Higgins v. Barnes, 530 A.2d
    724, 726 (Md. 1987) ([P]arol evidence is inadmissible to vary,
    alter,

    or

    contradict

    unambiguous.).

    contract

    that

    is

    complete

    and

    Ambiguity arises if, to a reasonable person,

    the language used is susceptible of more than one meaning or is


    of doubtful meaning.
    (Md. 2007).

    Cochran v. Norkunas, 919 A.2d 700, 710

    We conclude that, because the agreement between

    Plaintiff and Defendants was clear and unambiguous, the district


    court correctly declined to consider evidence extrinsic to the
    escrow

    agreement

    to

    discern

    the

    intent

    of

    the

    parties

    in

    entering into the agreement.


    Accordingly, we affirm the district courts judgment.
    We

    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the


    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3

    You might also like