Jugum v. Federal Sav. and Loan Ins. Corp., C86-211C.

• Decision Date: 29 September 1986
• Docket Number: No. C86-211C.,C86-211C.
• Citation: 646 F. Supp. 764
• Parties: Jo Anne JUGUM and Martin and Anne Jugum, Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington

646 F. Supp. 764

Jo Anne JUGUM and Martin and Anne Jugum, Plaintiffs, v. FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant.

No. C86-211C.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington.

September 29, 1986.

David W. Soukup, Levinson, Friedman, Vhugen, Duggan, Bland & Horowitz, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiffs.

Richard S. Twiss, Perkins Coie, Seattle, Wash., David A. Felt, Office of the Gen. Counsel, Federal Home Loan Bank Bd., Washington, D.C., for defendant.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

COUGHENOUR, District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation's (hereinafter "FSLIC") motion for reconsideration, or in the alternative, for motion in limine. The parties have not requested oral argument.

On May 27, 1986, this Court entered an Order Denying Cross Motions for Summary Judgment. In doing so, the Court set a September 29, 1986, trial date for trial of the remaining issue in the case — whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover $164,926.61 deposited in FSLIC insured accounts at the Westside Savings and Loan Association. Westside was declared insolvent on August 30, 1985, and FSLIC was appointed receiver. Under circumstances described in the previous Order, the Jugums' claim for insurance coverage in the total amount of deposits was denied, and they then filed this action under 12 U.S.C. § 1728(b). See Jugum v. Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, 637 F.Supp. 1045 (W.D.Wash.1986).

In the motion now before the Court, FSLIC repeats and amplifies two arguments that it made in its motion for summary judgment. First, FSLIC argues that application of Washington law on a financial institution's liability to its depositors requires this Court to reverse its previous determination and hold that FSLIC, in making insurance determinations, may rely on Westside's account records as conclusive evidence of ownership of funds on deposit. Secondly, FSLIC argues that the Court should defer to FSLIC's administrative practice of relying on account records in determinations of joint accounts, and allow FSLIC to place conclusive reliance on the account records in this case. The Court disagrees, for the reasons clearly stated in the Order dated May 27, 1986, and for the reasons stated below.

The very materials submitted in support of the motion for reconsideration disprove FSLIC's contention that it is the agency's administrative practice to place conclusive reliance on a bank's records in determining whether accounts in an institution are jointly owned and therefore insured separately. The letter of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, dated July 22, 1985, and addressed to individuals similarly situated to plaintiffs in the case sub judice, reads at page 4:

"Even though the regulations provide that the records of the insured institution are conclusive, the FSLIC has found over the years that the records of institutions in default are not always completely reliable. Consequently, the FSLIC permits claims for insurance coverage where the claimant provides clear and convincing evidence that the institution's records are in error. Thus, if by such clear and convincing evidence you could demonstrate that the ______ provided to ______ all information required by the regulations to establish the accounts in a different matter, that such other accounts would have provided for more complete insurance coverage, and that _______ either failed to properly record the information or destroyed records which would comply with regulations and support the claim for additional insurance, then a request for reconsideration on this basis could be properly reviewed by the Board.

"Such evidence could include copies of the original _____ records pertaining to accounts, copies of correspondence between the _____ and ________ pertaining to the accounts, or sworn detailed affidavits of others explaining the nature of the accounts opened, the information given by the _______ to _______, the destruction of the records and other occurrences pertinent to the claim.

"Based on the present record, however, no such clear and convincing evidence appears."

(Confidential information deleted by FSLIC). Defendant's counsel's representation to the Court, on the basis of the meager materials submitted, that FSLIC's practice is to rely conclusively on the institution's account records to determine issues of ownership, especially in light of the quoted material, supra, is patently inaccurate and incorrect. Even if defendant...