KEEFE ET AL.

v.

BLOOMFIELD VILLAGE DRAIN DISTRICT ET AL.; KEEFE ET AL. V. MARTIN DRAIN AND BRANCHES DRAIN DISTRICT ET AL.; KEEFE ET AL. V. CENTER LINE RELIEF DRAIN DISTRICT ET AL.; AND KEEFE ET AL. V. NINE-MILE-HALFWAY DRAIN DISTRICT ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Dove v. McCORMICK, 698 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
  …gnment to the RTC extinguished Dove’s right to maintain a civil action, the argument has no bearing on this case. . In D’Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 315 U.S. 447, 456-62, 62 S.Ct. 676, 679-81, 86 L.Ed. 956, reh'g. denied, 315 U.S. 830, 62 S.Ct. 910, 86 L.Ed. 1224 (1942), the supreme court emphasized the strong policy considerations for protecting the assets of failed banking institutions. Relying on D’Oench and the common law of assignments, federal courts have extended to FDIC’s…
• Llope v. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp., 558 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
  …ntee) shall be binding on the Holder unless in writing signed by an expressly authorized officer of the Holder.” The trial court, relying on D’Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 315 U.S. 447, 62 S.Ct. 676, 86 L.Ed. 956, reh’g denied, 315 U.S. 830, 62 S.Ct. 910, 86 L.Ed. 1224 (1942), and its progeny, granted the final summary judgment, pre-termitting the appellant from maintaining an affirmative defense based on estoppel. The D’Oench doctrine was derived from a policy determined to be inhere…
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Morley, 867 F.2d 1381 (11th Cir. 1989)
  …law would likely preclude Morley from raising his defenses. The federal courts have consistently precluded debtors from asserting defenses against the FDIC. See D'Oench, Duhme and Co. v. FDIC, 315 U.S. 447, 62 S.Ct. 676, 86 L.Ed. 956, reh'g denied, 315 U.S. 830, 62 S.Ct. 910, 86 L.Ed. 1224 (1942) (after FDIC acquired a note under a purchase and assumption program, the Court concluded that a party could not use a defense premised on an undisclosed agreement against the FDIC). Several cases decided after the…