First State Bank of Wheatland v. American Nat. Bank, 90-160

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
• Writing for the Court: RAPER
• Citation: 808 P.2d 804
• Parties: FIRST STATE BANK OF WHEATLAND (formerly American Bank of Wheatland), and American National Bank of Laramie, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK (Cheyenne), and Does 1 to 5, inclusive, Appellees (Defendants).
• Docket Number: No. 90-160,90-160
• Decision Date: 11 April 1991

Page 804

808 P.2d 804 FIRST STATE BANK OF WHEATLAND (formerly American Bank of Wheatland), and American National Bank of Laramie, Appellants (Plaintiffs),
v.
AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK (Cheyenne), and Does 1 to 5, inclusive, Appellees (Defendants). No. 90-160. Supreme Court of Wyoming. April 11, 1991.

Page 805

John E. Stanfield of Smith, Stanfield & Scott, Laramie, and John B. Speight, Hathaway, Speight, Kunz, Trautwein & Barrett, Cheyenne, for appellants.

David H. Carmichael, Burgess, Davis, Carmichael & Cannon, Cheyenne, and Anthony T. Wendtland, Burgess, Davis, Carmichael & Cannon, Sheridan, for appellees.

Before THOMAS, CARDINE and GOLDEN, JJ., and RAPER and BROWN, JJ., Retired.

RAPER, Justice, Retired.

Appellants sued appellee claiming dishonesty, misrepresentation, fraud, abuse of good faith and fair dealing in loan participation arrangements. The trial judge granted summary judgment to appellee.

The appellants have created what they consider the issues in what appears to be an attempt to obtain our attention in a melodramatic way:

1. Is dishonesty within the banking industry acceptable?

2. Do banks have a right to be dishonest--so long as they only cheat or defraud other banks?

3. In view of the Rule 56 evidence demonstrating its many misrepresentations as well as the facts which the Cheyenne Bank unquestionably concealed--was its summary judgment proper in this case?

4. Should the Cheyenne Bank be allowed to evade all responsibility for its actions through the ruse of comparing its own fraudulent conduct with conduct on the part of the Plaintiffs which, at most, was merely inadvertent or negligent?

5. Despite the unlimited powers it supposedly reserved under the participation contract--a document it alone created and filled out--was the Cheyenne Bank nevertheless obligated to exercise good faith and deal fairly with the participants when exercising those powers?

Appellee rephrases the issues claimed by appellants in a more conservative, judicious fashion:

1. Was Appellee entitled to Summary Judgment on Appellants' claims of fraud because no genuine issue of material fact existed concerning the element of justifiable reliance?

2. Was Appellee entitled to Summary Judgment on Appellants' claims of negligence because the element of "duty" was lacking?

3. Was Appellee entitled to Summary Judgment on Appellants' claims of breach of fiduciary duty because no fiduciary duty existed as a matter of law?

4. Was Appellee entitled to Summary Judgment on Appellants' claims that Appellee did not act in good faith or that Appellee committed the tort of "outrage"?

We will affirm the district court.

The facts are somewhat simple and lack the sinister view taken by appellants. Appellee loaned $800,000 to a Shirley L. Brown and then took from each of eight banks, including appellants, a certificate of participation in the sum of $100,000. Each participant, including appellants, signed and accepted a certificate of participation containing the following language:

Forwarding Bank [American National Bank, Cheyenne], by issuing this certificate, makes no representation of warranty as to the collectibility of the loan or the validity of...