RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION AS CONSERVATOR FOR SUNBELT FEDERAL SAVINGS, FSB, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
GEORGE MICHAEL MONTROSS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Federal holder in due course status does not protect a transferee from the personal defenses of a promissory note maker if the note was not negotiable from its inception.
Sunbelt Savings, as transferee of notes from an insolvent savings institution, sought to avoid personal defenses from the note's maker. The maker argu…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Personal Defenses cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The panel held that the federal holder in due course status of Sunbelt Savings, transferee of the notes from the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation as receiver for the insolvent former Sunbelt Savings, does not protect Sunbelt from personal defenses of the maker of a promissory note which was not negotiable from its inception. The panel opinion at 923 F. 2d 353 is reinstated, except that we take no position on the effect of the variable interest rate on the negotiability of the note. The maker of the note gave other reasons for the note being non-negotiable, and the case was presented on the appeal with both parties accepting the non-negotiability of the note. Sunbelt’s contention to the contrary before the en banc court comes too late. See Najarro v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n of Nacogdoches, Texas, 918 F. 2d 513, 516 (5th Cir.1990); Moore v. United States, 598 F. 2d 439, 441 (5th Cir.1979).
The personal defenses to which the maker is entitled must, of course, be based on documents of the savings institution at the time of its insolvency and not upon secret agreements unenforceable under D’Oench, Duhme & Co. v. FDIC, 315 U.S. 447, 62 S.Ct. 676, 86 L.Ed. 956 (1942). See Howell v. Continental Credit Corp., 655 F. 2d 743 (7th Cir.1981).
As recited in the conclusion of the panel opinion, the summary judgment in favor of Sunbelt Savings was premature. The case is remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
M.E. Lassiter and Donna Marie Lassiter v. Resolution Tr. Corp., 610 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
-
Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. MacKie, 962 F.2d 1144 (5th Cir. 1992)
-
Carson Wayne Newton v. Uniwest Fin. Corp., 967 F.2d 340 (9th Cir. 1992)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- D'Oench v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 315 U.S. 447 (U.S. 1942)
- Moore v. United States, 598 F.2d 439 (5th Cir. 1979)
- Howell v. Cont'l Credit Corp., 655 F.2d 743 (7th Cir. 1981)
- Sunbelt Savings v. Montross, 923 F.2d 353 (5th Cir. 1991)
- Najarro v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Nacogdoches, 918 F.2d 513 (5th Cir. 1990)