Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Newhart, No. 89-1852
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and MAGILL; JOHN R. GIBSON |
| Citation | 892 F.2d 47 |
| Parties | 10 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 257 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Merchants Asset Management Corporation, Appellees, v. John W. NEWHART d/b/a J.R. Woody & Associates, Appellant, J.R. Woody a/k/a Jerry R. Woody, d/b/a J.R. Woody & Associates. |
| Docket Number | No. 89-1852 |
| Decision Date | 15 December 1989 |
Page 47
Management Corporation, Appellees,
v.
John W. NEWHART d/b/a J.R. Woody & Associates, Appellant,
J.R. Woody a/k/a Jerry R. Woody, d/b/a J.R. Woody
& Associates.
Eighth Circuit.
Decided Dec. 15, 1989.
Page 48
John W. Newhart, St. Joseph, Mo., for appellant.
Steven M. Leigh, Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.
Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.
JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.
John W. Newhart appeals pro se from the district court's order 1 denying his motion to set aside entry of summary judgment in favor of Merchants Asset Management Corporation (Merchants), on Merchants's claim to recover amounts due on promissory notes it acquired from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). For reversal, Newhart argues that the district court improperly accorded holder in due course status to Merchants by virtue of Merchant's acquisition of the notes from the FDIC. 2 We affirm.
This appeal concerns three promissory notes executed by Newhart to the order of the State Farmers Bank in St. Joseph, Missouri. Several months after the notes were executed, the bank was declared insolvent. The FDIC purchased the notes in its corporate capacity as part of a purchase and assumption transaction. On July 15, 1987, the FDIC filed suit against Newhart and the comaker of the notes, J.R. Woody, for payment. The FDIC then sold the notes to Merchants, which was substituted as party plaintiff. A default judgment was entered against J.R. Woody on July 21, 1988. Merchants filed a motion for summary judgment against Newhart on September 15, 1988.
In response Newhart claimed, among other things, that he had executed the notes as a surety at the bank's request, and had an oral agreement with the bank that it would not look to him for repayment. The district court found, however, that Merchants, as a result of its purchase of the notes from the FDIC, had acquired holder in due course status pursuant to the policy set forth in D'Oench, Duhme & Co.
Page 49
v. FDIC, 315 U.S. 447, 62 S.Ct. 676, 86 L.Ed. 956 (1942), and codified at 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e), which barred Newhart from raising this defense. Accordingly, the court found in favor of Merchants. FDIC v. Newhart, 713 F.Supp. 320 (W.D.Mo.1989). Newhart concedes he would be barred from asserting the alleged oral agreement against the FDIC, but argues that the statute's protection does not extend to Merchants as the subsequent purchaser of the notes. Newhart, in his pro se brief, forthrightly states: "Newhart doesn't want to make a big deal out of this, but in the nature of a second opinion, Newhart would like an appellate decision of this question." While such a request would frequently motivate us to file a summary unpublished disposition, this issue is one on which district courts have followed a unanimous path in unpublished opinions, and we believe it is desireable to set forth our reasoning in some detail.It is well established that when the FDIC acquires a note in its corporate capacity, the obligor of the note cannot defend on the basis of an oral agreement of the type asserted by Newhart. See D'Oench, Duhme & Co., 315 U.S. at 459-62, 62 S.Ct. at 680-82 (federal policy aimed at protecting FDIC from misrepresentations regarding assets of banks it insures barred accommodation maker from asserting secret agreement with bank that note would not be enforced); FDIC v. Wood, 758 F.2d 156, 159 (6th Cir.) (discussion of D'Oench, Duhme doctrine and its application to FDIC in its corporate capacity), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 944, 106 S.Ct. 308, 88 L.Ed.2d 286 (1985). The D'Oench, Duhme doctrine has been codified at 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e), which provides as follows:
No agreement which tends to diminish or defeat the right, title or interest of the [FDIC] in any asset acquired by it under this section, either as security for a loan or by purchase, shall be valid against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frontier Bank, Banking Corp. v. Bingo Invs., LLC, No. 72529–7–I.
...Sav. Ass'n,903 F.2d 379 (5th Cir.1990); Carteret Sav. Bank v. Compton, Luther & Sons,899 F.2d 340 (4th Cir.1990); FDIC v. Newhart,892 F.2d 47 (8th Cir.1989).63 484 U.S. 86, 90, 108 S.Ct. 396, 98 L.Ed.2d 340 (1987).64 Id.at 89, 108 S.Ct. 396.65 Id.at 92–93, 108 S.Ct. 396(citations omitted).6......
-
Settlers' Hous. Serv., Inc. v. Schaumburg Bank & Trust Co. (In re Settlers' Hous. Serv., Inc.), Bankruptcy No. 13–bk–28022.
...F.3d 561, 564 (6th Cir.1997).) “[T]he FDIC transfers its protected status to subsequent purchasers of notes it holds.” FDIC v. Newhart, 892 F.2d 47, 50 (8th Cir.1989). This is because, “[o]ne of the purposes behind § 1823(e) is to facilitate the purchase and assumption of failed banks as op......
-
Tivoli Ventures, Inc. v. Bumann, No. 92SC838
...to the FDIC and not its assignees, courts have interpreted the scope of § 1823(e) to include the FDIC's assignees. See FDIC v. Newhart, 892 F.2d 47, 50 (8th Cir.1989) (stating "one of the purposes behind § 1823(e) is to facilitate the purchase and assumption of failed banks as opposed to th......
-
Rodriguez v. Banco Cent., No. Civ. 82-1835 (JAF).
...that the FDIC had flows to banks to whom the FDIC chooses to transfer the assets it has held. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Newhart, 892 F.2d 47 (8th Cir.1989). In all such situations, at one time or another the FDIC is the actual holder of the assets in question. In the case at bar the FDI......
-
Frontier Bank, Banking Corp. v. Bingo Invs., LLC, No. 72529–7–I.
...Sav. Ass'n,903 F.2d 379 (5th Cir.1990); Carteret Sav. Bank v. Compton, Luther & Sons,899 F.2d 340 (4th Cir.1990); FDIC v. Newhart,892 F.2d 47 (8th Cir.1989).63 484 U.S. 86, 90, 108 S.Ct. 396, 98 L.Ed.2d 340 (1987).64 Id.at 89, 108 S.Ct. 396.65 Id.at 92–93, 108 S.Ct. 396(citations omitted).6......
-
Settlers' Hous. Serv., Inc. v. Schaumburg Bank & Trust Co. (In re Settlers' Hous. Serv., Inc.), Bankruptcy No. 13–bk–28022.
...F.3d 561, 564 (6th Cir.1997).) “[T]he FDIC transfers its protected status to subsequent purchasers of notes it holds.” FDIC v. Newhart, 892 F.2d 47, 50 (8th Cir.1989). This is because, “[o]ne of the purposes behind § 1823(e) is to facilitate the purchase and assumption of failed banks as op......
-
Tivoli Ventures, Inc. v. Bumann, No. 92SC838
...to the FDIC and not its assignees, courts have interpreted the scope of § 1823(e) to include the FDIC's assignees. See FDIC v. Newhart, 892 F.2d 47, 50 (8th Cir.1989) (stating "one of the purposes behind § 1823(e) is to facilitate the purchase and assumption of failed banks as opposed to th......
-
Rodriguez v. Banco Cent., No. Civ. 82-1835 (JAF).
...that the FDIC had flows to banks to whom the FDIC chooses to transfer the assets it has held. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Newhart, 892 F.2d 47 (8th Cir.1989). In all such situations, at one time or another the FDIC is the actual holder of the assets in question. In the case at bar the FDI......