Case Explained: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT MUELLER BRASS COMPANY Plaintiff – v. DAVID CROMPTON Defendant – Third Party Plaintiff – Appellant MUELLER INDUSTRIES, INC Third-Party Defendant – Appellee ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Filed: 2026-07-28 The sixth-circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court’s summary judgment ruling in a dispute involving a personal guaranty on a defaulted loan. The court held that the district court erred by failing to address Crompton’s argument that Mueller’s attorneys’ fees should be treated as part of the underlying debt, requiring a reallocation of Quick Fitting’s settlement proceeds to satisfy those fees before enforcing the guaranty against Crompton personally. Applying de novo review, the Sixth Circuit determined that the district court conflated two distinct legal questions—whether the fees were part of the secured debt subject to priority-based reallocation and whether Crompton was contractually liable for them—and bypassed the former without adequate analysis of choice-of-law issues or the interplay between the loan terms and receivership settlement. Consequently, the court vacated the award of attorneys’ fees and remanded the case for the district court to consider the reallocation argument in the first instance. The court affirmed the dismissal of Crompton’s breach of guaranty claim, ruling under Tennessee law that he failed to identify a specific contractual provision breached and could not recover damages because his incurred attorneys’ fees were not recoverable under the American Rule. Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal of Crompton’s tort claims for lack of standing, finding he abandoned the argument by failing to defend it at the district court, and affirmed the denial of sanctions against Mueller, concluding that Mueller’s litigation conduct was not meritless or brought for an improper purpose. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.