Coleman v. FDIC
| Decision Date | 25 March 1993 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 91-12760-H. |
| Citation | 826 F. Supp. 31 |
| Parties | Martin J. COLEMAN, III, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION as Receiver for First Mutual Bank for Savings, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Joseph L. Duffy, Jr., Hingham, MA, David R. Kerrigan, Mahoney, Hawkes & Goldings, Boston, MA, for plaintiffs.
Brian E. Pastuszenski, Mark K. Schonfeld, Spencer C. Demetros, Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault, G. Matthew Kerns, Daniel P. Dacey, Marsh, Moriarty, Ontell & Dacey, P.C., Boston, MA, for defendant.
The Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint in this action on June 11, 1991 in Middlesex Superior Court, alleging various torts arising out of the breach of two agreements by First Mutual Bank for Savings ("First Mutual").1 The first agreement was an alleged June, 1990 workout agreement relating to a defaulted $6.2 million loan for the development of a condominium project in Hull, Massachusetts ("Sunset Cove"). The other agreement was an alleged forbearance agreement relating to defaulted loans secured by mortgages on seven rental properties in Waltham, Massachusetts. The action was later removed to this Court. On June 28, 1991, upon the failure of First Mutual, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") was appointed receiver. As a result, the Plaintiffs were required to submit any claims they may have had against First Mutual to the FDIC's administrative claims process before they could pursue such claims in this Court. See 12 U.S.C. §§ 1821(d)(6) and 1821(d)(13)(D). The FDIC set October 1, 1991 as the deadline for filing proofs of claim.
The Plaintiffs filed their proof of claim with the FDIC on September 10, 1991, attaching their original Complaint to depict their claims against the FDIC as receiver for First Mutual. After the FDIC denied the Plaintiffs' administrative claim, the Plaintiffs advanced their action in this Court, subsequently filing an Amended Complaint. The FDIC contends that although the first two counts of the Amended Complaint were asserted in their entirety in the original Complaint, the remaining eight counts of the Amended Complaint (Counts III through X), either in whole or in part, assert new "lender liability" claims against the FDIC based on the new set of facts alleged in the Amended Complaint. As the FDIC notes, the Amended Complaint alleges for the first time that First Mutual took control of Sunset Cove, coerced the Plaintiffs to make payments on the Sunset Cove loan and to give First Mutual additional collateral to secure the loan, and impaired the value of the collateral securing the loan. The FDIC now moves to dismiss Counts III through X of the Amended Complaint on the ground that these claims constitute new claims that were not submitted to the FDIC administrative claim process.
The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BHC Interim Funding Ii, L.P. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
...conversion and breach of contract because only a claim for breach of other agreements was submitted to the receiver); Coleman v. FDIC, 826 F.Supp. 31, 32 (D.Mass.1993) (“This Court ... has no jurisdiction over claims and theories of recovery in the Amended Complaint that were not asserted i......
-
Motorcity of Jacksonville, Ltd. By and Through Motorcity of Jacksonville, Inc. v. Southeast Bank N.A.
...present the tort claims in the Second Proposed Complaint, and it cites a federal district court's decision in Coleman v. FDIC, 826 F.Supp. 31, 32 (D.Mass.1993), in support of its contention that appellees failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. In Coleman, the court considered an a......
-
Jahn v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
...proof of claim, the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction to consider the new causes of action. See Coleman v. FDIC, 826 F.Supp. 31, 32 (D.Mass.1993) (“This Court ... has no jurisdiction over claims and theories of recovery in the Amended Complaint that were not asserted in the origi......
-
Plymouth Mills, Inc. v. FDIC
...Local 2 v. FDIC, 962 F.2d 63, 66 (D.C.Cir.1992); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Elman, 949 F.2d 624, 627 (2d Cir.1991); Coleman v. FDIC, 826 F.Supp. 31, 32 (D.Mass.1993); Capital Data Corp. v. Capital Nat'l Bank, 778 F.Supp. 669, 674, 677-78 Second, FIRREA empowers the FDIC as receiver or conser......