C&C Inv. Prop. v. Trustmark Nat’l Bank

The D’Oench, Duhme doctrine, which originated in the federal common law and is now codified at 12 U.S.C. 1823(e), prevents borrowers from relying on oral agreements they allegedly had with a failed bank to defend against collection efforts of a federal receiver like the FDIC. In this case, plaintiffs filed suit against Heritage for beach of contract and fraudulent inducement after Heritage foreclosed on plaintiffs' properties. While the suit was pending, Heritage was declared insolvent and the FDIC was appointed as receiver. That same day, the FDIC entered into a Purchase and Assumption Agreement with Trustmark, under which it transferred to Trustmark various Heritage assets and liabilities, including plaintiffs' notes and guaranties. The district court subsequently granted the FDIC's motion to dismiss. Trustmark then pleaded 1823(e) as a defense and filed counterclaims against plaintiffs for the amount still owing on the notes. The district court granted Trustmark's motion for summary judgment. The court rejected plaintiff's waiver arguments, concluding that nothing about Trustmark's agreement with the FDIC expressly or impliedly indicates a voluntary or intentional surrender by Trustmark of the section 1823(e) defense it inherited from the FDIC. The court also rejected plaintiffs' assertion that Trustmark waived this defense by raising it in a dilatory manner. Finally, even viewing an executive’s testimony about the purported side agreement in favor of plaintiffs, there is no evidence from which a jury might conclude that all of the conditions necessary to overcome section 1823(e) are present. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "C&C Inv. Prop. v. Trustmark Nat'l Bank" on Justia Law