Guidice v. BFG Electroplating and Mfg. Co., Inc., Civ. A. No. 86-2093.
| Decision Date | 01 September 1989 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 86-2093. |
| Citation | 732 F. Supp. 556 |
| Parties | Phillip and Brenda GUIDICE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BFG ELECTROPLATING AND MANUFACTURING CO., INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Richard D. Fox, Philadelphia, Pa., Ronald Simon, Washington, D.C., and Edward Specter, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Phillip and Brenda Guidice, et al.
J.W. Montgomery, III, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Season-All and Jeffy Grube.
Richard J. Federowicz, Pittsburgh, Pa., for BFG.
Eric A. Schaffer and Bradley S. Tupi, Pittsburgh, Pa., for National Bank of the Commonwealth.
Charles Kirshner, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Berlin Metals.
We consider the National Bank of the Commonwealth's motion for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9613(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For reasons set forth below the motion will be denied.
The procedural history of this action is somewhat complicated as it has journeyed through two district court judges and now rests in the hands of a third.
In October 1986, residents of the Borough of Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania (Borough) commenced action against BFG Electroplating and Manufacturing Company (BFG). Plaintiffs alleged that BFG unlawfully contaminated the environment causing personal injuries. Also asserted by plaintiffs are claims for "response costs" as defined by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601, et seq.
BFG then filed a third-party complaint against current and past owners of adjacent land known as the "Berlin Property" in December 1986. BFG sought indemnification, contribution and response costs from those owners including the National Bank of the Commonwealth (Bank) as an eight-month record title owner of the Berlin Property.
On February 25, 1987, the Bank filed a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. Plaintiffs filed a Rule 14 claim against the Bank and other third-party defendants on August 8, 1988. On September 24, 1987, Judge Dumbauld granted the Bank's motion and later denied BFG's motion for reconsideration in an order dated October 26, 1987.
On October 5, 1987, in response to an October 1987 written request of the Bank, Judge Dumbauld dismissed plaintiffs' Rule 14 claim. The October 5th order was not served on the parties. Plaintiffs responded to the Bank's letter by requesting that a proper motion be made by the Bank and plaintiffs be afforded an opportunity to respond. The Bank, also unaware of the October 5th order, filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Rule 14 claim against the Bank on November 20, 1987. Three days later Judge Dumbauld issued a second order dismissing the claim with prejudice.
The case was reassigned to Judge Simmons in December, 1987.
In early 1988, BFG and plaintiffs filed motions to vacate the order dismissing the Rule 14 claim against the Bank. Additionally BFG moved to strike the orders dismissing its third-party complaint and motion for reconsideration. The Bank made a Rule 54(b) motion for findings regarding dismissal of the aforementioned Rule 14 claim and third-party complaint. At a March 26, 1988 hearing Judge Simmons orally vacated those portions of Judge Dumbauld's orders concerning plaintiffs' Rule 14 claim against the Bank on due process grounds. (Tr. pp. 2-7).
In late September 1988 the case was reassigned to the undersigned.
The Bank filed its motion for summary judgment in April 1989. Opposing briefs were filed by plaintiffs and BFG. The Bank filed reply briefs.
During the 1970's Berlin Metal Polishers (Berlin Metal) operated a metal polishing company at the Berlin Property. Berlin Metal was managed and owned by the Runco family (Runcos).
In May 1971 the Bank approved a line of credit for Berlin Metal secured by assignment of accounts receivable. Several extensions and renewals of this line of credit were approved by the Bank from May 1971 through September 1975.
On September 8, 1975, the Bank approved a loan to construct a new treatment facility to satisfy Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (PaDER) requirements secured by a mortgage on the Berlin Property. Subsequently the Bank approved additional lines of credit and two two-year installment loans. During the course of the loans and lines of credit the Bank received periodic financial statements.
By 1980, Berlin Metal had defaulted on its obligations to the Bank. In January 1980 Bank representatives toured Berlin Metal and met with plant officials to discuss management. At that meeting the Bank representatives were informed of the number of work shifts, the status of Berlin Metal's accounts, the composition of the management and the presence of raw materials. The Bank proposed and the plant management agreed that Berlin Metal take out a loan guaranteed by the Small Business Administration (SBA) to pay off monies owed the Bank on the mortgage and lines of credit. The loan was also to allow for working capital.
In March 1980, on behalf of Berlin Metal, the Bank submitted with recommendation of approval the loan application to the SBA.
On April 9, 1980, the Bank confessed judgment against Berlin in the amount of $164,000.
Through the efforts of Dominic Runco, Sr. the Bank was apprised of potential purchasers of the Berlin equipment and/or the Berlin facility as early as June 1980. However, those efforts did not come to fruition in part because Berlin could not obtain a permanent permit to use the Borough sewer.
In response to the Bank's July 1980 inquiry, the PaDER sent information concerning a May 1979 fish kill in Mahoning Creek which was attributed to a cyanide discharge from the Borough sewage treatment plant. Samples taken at the Berlin and BFG facilities showed cyanide and heavy metal discharge in excess of Borough Ordinance limits.
According to Bank file memoranda, Bank credit officer Barbara Kay was in direct contact with prospective purchaser Bruce Armstrong. Armstrong advised Kay of his efforts to obtain approval from PaDER of his proposal to dump directly into the creek. Kay independently communicated with Borough officials as to the status of the Borough's acceptance of Berlin discharge. She learned that any new owner of the Berlin facility would have to apply directly to the PaDER for approval to dump into the creek. In the meantime, Berlin was permitted to use the sewer service with monitoring of its discharge commencing January 1981.
In January 1981 the Runcos requested a meeting with the Bank to discuss the future of Berlin Metal. At that meeting Dominic Runco, Sr. expressed an interest in repurchasing the business from his family, but was concerned about the outstanding debt against the business and property. Possible liquidation of the business was also discussed.
In February 1981 an agent of the Bank visited the Berlin facility with Anthony Runco. In a written report the agent noted that no one was working and there was no heat or light. Water dripped from the ceiling. He observed 35 drums of chemicals and large tanks, some containing acid, which appeared rusty.
A March 1981 Bank memorandum summarized the outstanding debt of Berlin Metal. Because the account was six months delinquent and the business closed, it was recommended that the Bank execute on the April 9, 1980 judgment. On June 3, 1981, the Bank filed a complaint and mortgage foreclosure against the Berlin facility and received judgment on June 22, 1981.
On July 13, 1981, Bank president James Trimarchi suggested a meeting to discuss settlement of Berlin's outstanding loans with the Bank.
On September 28, 1981, at the Bank's request a meeting was held with Bank officials, the Runcos and counsel for Berlin in an effort to reach a settlement.
A series of settlement proposals beginning October 1981 culminated in a written agreement between the Bank and Runcos dated January 21, 1982. The agreement contemplated a foreclosure sale of the Berlin Property with the possibility that if Colomba Runco, the ex-wife of Dominic Runco, Sr., were the successful purchaser, the Bank would provide financing.
At the sheriff's sale on April 16, 1982, the Bank purchased the Berlin Property for $145,000. The deed to the Berlin Property was delivered to the Bank May 14, 1982.
During the Bank's ownership the Bank paid insurance premiums and property taxes for the Berlin property.
Pursuant to a trust created by Colomba and Anthony Runco, trustee Russell D'Aiello was directed to acquire title to the Berlin Property. D'Aiello was further directed to rent the premises, make mortgage payments to the Bank out of the rent proceeds, and distribute any surplus proceeds to Mrs. Runco and Anthony Runco. The Bank conveyed the property to D'Aiello as trustee on January 21, 1983. The Bank informed Season-All, a tenant, in February 1983 that pursuant of the purchase financing, the lease checks were to be submitted directly to the Bank.
In July 1981 Bank president James Trimarchi was approached at a social gathering by a representative of Season-All who expressed an interest in leasing the Berlin Property. To this end on July 13, 1981, Trimarchi forwarded a lease submitted by Season-All for the rental of a portion of the Berlin building to counsel for Berlin. Trimarchi advised Berlin that if it wished to execute the lease, it should contact Steve Garland of Season-All.
The lease between Berlin Metal and Season-All was executed on August 27, 1981. Season-All used the space for housing raw materials used in its window manufacturing operation. When Season-All took possession of a portion of the Berlin Property, the entire property was vacant.
On December 17, 1981, Season-All and Berlin executed a second lease involving the entire Berlin premises. Season-All...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re DuFrayne
...determinative issue here is whether FTB holds indicia of ownership, i.e., the Mortgage, see generally Guidice v. BFG Electroplating and Mfg. Co., Inc., 732 F.Supp. 556, 561 (W.D.Pa.1989) (stating that under Pennsylvania law the holding of a mortgage constitutes an indicia of ownership), pri......
-
Redwing Carriers v. Saraland Apartments, Ltd.
...Bank & Trust Co., 632 F.Supp. 573, 577-78 (D.Md.1986) (CERCLA was hastily drafted and is unclear); Guidice v. BFG Electroplating & Mfg. Co., 732 F.Supp. 556, 561 (W.D.Pa.1989) (claiming without explanation in an apparent reference to § 9607(a)(1) that CERCLA imposes liability on "current ow......
-
Bancamerica Commercial Corp. v. Trinity Industries
...also adhered to this distinction between operational management and financial management. See, e.g., Guidice v. BFG Electroplating and Mfg. Co., Inc., 732 F.Supp. 556, 561-62 (W.D.Pa. 1989); United States v. New Castle County, 727 F.Supp. 854, 866 (D.Del.1989); United States v. Nicolet, Inc......
-
Kemp Industries, Inc. v. Safety Light Corp.
...Metal Corp., 910 F.2d 668, 671 (9th Cir.1990); see Snediker Developers, 773 F.Supp. at 987; Guidice v. BFG Electroplating and Manufacturing Co., Inc., 732 F.Supp. 556, 561 (W.D.Pa.1989). 1. Purpose of As indicated by the language of CERCLA, a court determining whether the security interest ......
-
CHAPTER 8 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN OIL & GAS ACQUISITIONS AND DIVESTITURES
...could, by acquiring title, acquire the responsibility for remediation costs. [9] See: Guidice v. BFG Electoplating & Mfg. Co., 732 F. Supp. 556 (W.D. Pa. 1989); U.S. v. Maryland Bank & Trust Co., 632 F. Supp. 573 (D. Md. 1986). [10] U.S. v. Monsanto Corp., 858 F.2d 860 (S.C. 1988). [11] See......
-
Trust(ee) and Abandonment Issues: a Proposal for New Action Regarding Abandonment of Environmentally Contaminated Property
...at 1357 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 9601(35)(A)). 96. See id. (citing 42 U.S.C. § 9601(20)(A) (1988); Guidice v. BFG Electroplating & Mfg. Co., 732 F. Supp. 556 (W.D. Pa. 1989); United States v. Md. Bank & Tr. Co., 632 F. Supp. 573 (D. Md. 1986)).97. See U.S. Dep't of Justice, Handbook for Chapter ......
-
Environmental Risks of Acquiring Property by Foreclosure
...before a secured creditor will fall outside the security interest exemption); Guidice v. BFG Electroplating & Manufacturing Co., 732 F. Supp. 556, 20 ELR 20439 (W.D. Pa. 1989) (the security interest exemption is lost following foreclosure); and United States v. Mirabile, No. 84-2280, 1985 W......
-
Toward a Safer Harbor for Lenders-the Secured Creditor Exemption Under Cercla
...[FN33]. Id. at 672. (Emphasis added in original.) [FN34]. Id. at 672. [FN35]. Guidice v. BFG Electroplating and Manufacturing Co., 732 F.Supp. 556 (W.D.Pa.1989). [FN36]. Id. at 561-62. [FN37]. United States v. Fleet Factors Corp., 901 F.2d 1550 (11th Cir.C.A.1990); cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 7......