Meliezer v. Resolution Trust Co., No. 91-3248

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING, and EMILIO M. GARZA; POLITZ
Citation952 F.2d 879
PartiesBarbara Ronda MELIEZER, wife of/and Karl A. Loetzerich, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. RESOLUTION TRUST COMPANY, as Receiver for Home Savings and Loan Association, Defendants-Appellees.
Decision Date05 February 1992
Docket NumberNo. 91-3248

Page 879

952 F.2d 879
Barbara Ronda MELIEZER, wife of/and Karl A. Loetzerich,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
RESOLUTION TRUST COMPANY, as Receiver for Home Savings and
Loan Association, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 91-3248
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 5, 1992.

Page 880

Kevin Kennedy Gipson, Donovan & Lawler, Metairie, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Robert A. Mathis, Newman, Drolla, Mathis, Brady & Wakefield, Metairie, La., for defendants-appellees.

Christopher J. Bellotto, FDIC, Washington, D.C., for FDIC.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, KING, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

POLITZ, Chief Judge:

Barbara Ronda Meliezer and her husband Karl A. Loetzerich appeal the district court's dismissal without prejudice of their claim against Home Savings and Loan Association F.A. and the Resolution Trust Corporation. The district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. For the reasons assigned we affirm.

Background

In September of 1987 the Loetzerichs purchased property in New Orleans, assuming a Home Savings mortgage. The property was destroyed by fire on December 1, 1989; Home Savings then held the mortgage. After filing a fire damage claim the Loetzerichs learned that the property was underinsured.

In June 1990 Home Savings was declared insolvent and Resolution Trust Company (RTC) was appointed Receiver. Implementing the administrative claims process, RTC published the notice required by 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(3)(B), and established September 25, 1990 as the deadline for the filing of claims.

On November 30, 1990 the Loetzerichs filed a suit against Home Savings and the RTC alleging that Home Savings was negligent for allowing them to assume the loan and hazard insurance when it knew or should have known that there was insufficient insurance to cover a fire loss to the property. The RTC moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Loetzerichs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d). The district court granted the motion and the Loetzerichs timely appealed.

Page 881

Analysis

A motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction may be decided by the district court considering only the complaint, the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts reflected in the record, or the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts. Ynclan v. Department of Air Force, 943 F.2d 1388 (5th Cir.1991) (citing Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 897, 102 S.Ct. 396, 70 L.Ed.2d 212 (1981)). In the present case the district court relied on the complaint and undisputed facts.

The Loetzerichs contend that the district court erred in dismissing their claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because the RTC waived the administrative claims process when it failed to provide the notice as required by 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(3)(C). They contend that this "waiver" vests the district court with jurisdiction. We are not persuaded.

We begin our review with the administrative claims process in the Financial Institutions Reform and Recovery Enforcement Act of 1989 ("FIRREA"), Pub.L. No. 101-73, 83 Stat. 183 (1989). Congress enacted FIRREA to remedy the problems it perceived in the existing regulatory scheme in the savings and loan industry. See H.Rep. No. 101-54(I), 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 291-312, reprinted in 1989 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 86, 87-108 (detailing the history and purpose behind FIRREA). Among its numerous provisions FIRREA established the RTC 1 in an effort "to contain, manage, and resolve failed savings associations." Pub.L. 101-73, 103 Stat. 183, 187, published at 12 U.S.C.A. § 1811 Note. To assure that the RTC or Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 2 could deal expeditiously with failed depository institutions, Congress created a new claims determination procedure by which the creditors of a failed institution may be required to first present their claims to the Receiver for administrative consideration before pursuing a judicial remedy. 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(3).

This claims procedure was in part informed by the Supreme Court's decision in Coit Independence Joint Venture v. Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp., 489 U.S. 561, 109 S.Ct. 1361, 103 L.Ed.2d 602 (1989). 3 In Coit the Court held that the previous statutes governing the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board did not grant exclusive adjudicatory power to the FSLIC over creditors' claims against insolvent savings and loans associations under FSLIC receivership and did not divest the courts of jurisdiction to consider those claims de novo. Id. 489 U.S. at 587, 109 S.Ct. at 1375-76, 103 L.Ed.2d at 624. The Court also held that because there was no reasonable time limit on FSLIC's consideration of creditor claims, the FSLIC did not have the power as receiver to require parties to adjudicate their claims first through the FSLIC claim procedure before pursuing judicial remedies. 4

The new claims procedure gives the Receiver of a failed financial institution the authority to review claims. 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(3). The RTC has 180 days to determine whether to allow or disallow a claim and must timely notify the claimant. 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(5). If the claim is disallowed, or the 180-day determination period has expired, the claimant may request further

Page 882

administrative consideration or seek judicial review. 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(6)(A).

Typically, exhaustion of administrative remedies is required where Congress imposes such a requirement. Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975). If the statutory language is not explicit, courts are guided by congressional intent in determining whether exhaustion is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
144 practice notes
  • Saffer v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, B246412
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 29, 2014
    ...pp. 1285–1286; Freeman v. F.D.I.C., supra, 56 F.3d at p. 1402, [225 Cal.App.4th 1259]Meliezer v. Resolution Trust Company (5th Cir.1992) 952 F.2d 879, 882–883; Ladd v. Second Nat'l Bank, supra, 941 F.Supp. at pp. 90–91.) “ ‘The only exception to the strict requirement of exhaustion of remed......
  • Cholakyan v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case No. CV 10–05944 MMM (JCx).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • June 30, 2011
    ...v. General Tel. & Electronics, 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir.1979) (facial attack); [796 F.Supp.2d 1227] Meliezer v. Resolution Trust Co., 952 F.2d 879, 881 (5th Cir.1992) (challenge based on extrinsic evidence). Whatever the nature of the challenge, plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating......
  • In re Scott, Bankruptcy No. 91-51178C
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Fifth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Texas
    • July 25, 1993
    ...therefore not have subject matter jurisdiction over the creditor's claim, notwithstanding the procedural glitch. See Meliezer v. RTC, 952 F.2d 879, 883 (5th Cir.1992). The case involved a claim by the purchasers of a home, asserting that Home Savings had been negligent in allowing them to a......
  • In Re William D. Shirk, Bankruptcy No. 09-35487.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Sixth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • September 30, 2010
    ...remedies as a condition to seeking relief in courts. Freeman, 56 F.3d at 1402 (citing cases); see also Meliezer v. Resolution Trust Co., 952 F.2d 879, 883 (5th Cir.1992) (Federal agencies do not lose jurisdiction by their failure to comply with statutory time limits unless the statute demon......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
145 cases
  • Saffer v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, B246412
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • April 29, 2014
    ...pp. 1285–1286; Freeman v. F.D.I.C., supra, 56 F.3d at p. 1402, [225 Cal.App.4th 1259]Meliezer v. Resolution Trust Company (5th Cir.1992) 952 F.2d 879, 882–883; Ladd v. Second Nat'l Bank, supra, 941 F.Supp. at pp. 90–91.) “ ‘The only exception to the strict requirement of exhaustion of remed......
  • Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc., No. 01CV4667 MMM (AJWx).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • October 15, 2001
    ...Publishing Co. v. General Tel. & Electronics, 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir.1979) (facial attack); Meliezer v. Resolution Trust Co., 952 F.2d 879, 881 (5th Cir.1992) (challenge based on extrinsic evidence). It is the plaintiff who bears the burden of demonstrating that the court has subjec......
  • Cholakyan v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Case No. CV 10–05944 MMM (JCx).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • June 30, 2011
    ...General Tel. & Electronics, 594 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir.1979) (facial attack); [796 F.Supp.2d 1227] Meliezer v. Resolution Trust Co., 952 F.2d 879, 881 (5th Cir.1992) (challenge based on extrinsic evidence). Whatever the nature of the challenge, plaintiff bears the burden of demonstratin......
  • In re Scott, Bankruptcy No. 91-51178C
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Fifth Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Western District of Texas
    • July 25, 1993
    ...therefore not have subject matter jurisdiction over the creditor's claim, notwithstanding the procedural glitch. See Meliezer v. RTC, 952 F.2d 879, 883 (5th Cir.1992). The case involved a claim by the purchasers of a home, asserting that Home Savings had been negligent in allowing them to a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT