Bruha (defendant) signed a promissory note in favor of Sherman County Bank (Sherman) in exchange for a line of credit. The note stated that Bruha would pay $75,000 “or so much as may be outstanding.” The note also stated that it “evidence[d] a revolving line of credit,” meaning that Bruha could request up to $75,000. Sherman failed, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was appointed as the bank’s receiver. Heritage Bank (Heritage) (plaintiff) purchased Bruha’s promissory note from the FDIC. Heritage brought suit against Bruha to enforce the note. Bruha argued that Heritage was not a holder in due course of the note. Bruha also argued that Sherman fraudulently induced him into borrowing the funds for risky investments by understating potential losses and misinforming him on the potential benefits of leaving funds in his trading account. The district court found that Heritage was not a holder in due course but rejected Bruha’s fraud-in-the-inducement defense. The court granted summary judgment to Heritage as an assignee of FDIC. Bruha appealed.