David Lund v. Jack Jevne

MEMORANDUM

David Hershel Lund appeals the district court’s affirmance of (1) the bankruptcy court’s exclusion of parol evidence offered by Lund; and (2) the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment to Appellee Jack Jevne on Lund’s cross-claim for fraud. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d), and we affirm.

Lund is Jevne’s former financial advisor and admits to stealing $410,000 from funds controlled by Jevne. In 1991, Lund signed an unsecured promissory note acknowledging the debt and promising to repay $410,000 plus interest. In 2001, Lund signed another written agreement stating that he still owed that amount and that the statute of limitations did not bar the debt.

Lund wishes to introduce evidence that Jevne orally promised that he would not sue on the outstanding debt and would only use the 2001 agreement for purposes of obtaining a tax deduction. This alleged promise is directly contrary to Lund’s written waiver of the statute of limitations, which gave Jevne the right to sue on the outstanding debt. The parol evidence rule bars introduction of prior or contemporaneous oral representations that contradict integrated terms of a written agreement.…