RESOL. TP. v. O'Bear, Overholser, Smith & Huffer
Decision Date | 17 April 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 2:93 cv 164 JM.,2:93 cv 164 JM. |
Citation | 886 F. Supp. 658 |
Parties | RESOLUTION TRUST CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. O'BEAR, OVERHOLSER, SMITH & HUFFER, an Indiana partnership, d/b/a O'Bear, Overholser, Smith, Huffer & Rider, John J. Barber, Opal F. Bowman, William H. Bradshaw, John P. Erickson, Dean A. Hudson, Carl D. Overholser, Fred R. Rodkey, and Raymond J. Todd, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
William A. Spence, Steven A. Ramirez, Chicago, IL, for plaintiff.
Robert D. Brown and Richard A. Mayer, Merrillville, IN, George L. Hanna, Lafayette, IN, James H. Falk, Jr., Washington, DC, David A. Rosenthal, Lafayette, IN, Christine
A. DeSanctis and Robert E. Poynter, Lafayette, IN, for defendants.
This represents the second, and penultimate, chapter written by the court in this litigation — the trial being all that remains.1 The court now has before it numerous motions, including three motions for summary judgment. The summary judgment motions are as follows: Carl Overholser and O'Bear, Overholser, Smith & Huffer the "attorney defendants" move for summary judgment against the Resolution Trust Corporation the "RTC". Overholser, joined by John Barber, Opal Bowman, John Erickson, Fred Rodkey, Raymond Todd and Dean Hudson the "director defendants" move for summary judgment with regard to the RTC's claims against Todd, in his capacity as appraiser, and against all of the director defendants pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 1821(k).2 The RTC moves for partial summary judgment concerning the affirmative defenses asserted by the defendants. The pending non-dispositive motions all relate to the summary judgment motions; accordingly, the court takes up those motions in the context of the summary judgment motions, which are discussed below seriatim.
Dempsey v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co., 16 F.3d 832, 836 (7th Cir.1994) (citations omitted). "The burden rests squarely with the party moving for summary judgment to demonstrate that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case." Doe v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co., 42 F.3d 439, 443 (7th Cir.1994). The court views the facts presented on a motion for summary judgment in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, resolving all doubts in favor of that party. See id. "On the other hand, summary judgment must be entered `against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.'" Id. (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2554, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). In all of this, "the judge's role is not to evaluate the weight of the evidence or to determine the truth of the matter, but instead to determine whether there is a genuine issue of triable fact." Id.
This case involves the failure of Hometown Federal Savings Bank and the five high-risk loans that led to that failure. On June 8, 1990, the RTC was appointed receiver for Hometown. On June 4, 1993, RTC filed this lawsuit. As the court has previously explained, RTC alleges: (1) that the director defendants were grossly negligent in their management of Hometown, (2) that the attorney defendants committed legal malpractice in advising Hometown, and, (3) that defendant Todd committed professional malpractice in his capacity as chief appraiser for Hometown. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. O'Bear, Overholser, Smith & Huffer, 840 F.Supp. 1270, 1274 (N.D.Ind.1993). All of RTC's claims relate to Hometown's involvement in five specific loans in 1983-84.3 Additional facts are discussed as relevant below.
The court first takes up whether RTC can maintain its state-law claims against the attorney defendants and defendant Todd. The attorney and director defendants each challenge the timeliness of RTC's state-law claims in their respective summary judgment motions. The court now concludes that these claims are, in fact, time-barred. Because the same analysis applies regarding the timeliness of RTC's state-law claims against both the attorney defendants and Todd, the court discusses these claims together.
Ruling on defendant Todd's motion to dismiss, the court held that RTC's state-law claims did not accrue against Todd until Hometown's board was no longer dominated by the director defendants. See O'Bear, Overholser, Smith & Huffer, 840 F.Supp. at 1283-85. Limited to the allegations of the complaint, the court accepted that the defendants' domination continued until RTC was appointed receiver in June, 1990. See id. at 1284. The court stands by its conclusion that the Indiana courts would apply adverse domination to calculate the accrual of RTC's state-law claims; however, the record on summary judgment indicates that the defendants' domination of Hometown's board was over well before RTC's appointment as receiver. Although the legal context in which the court takes up the timeliness of RTC's state-law claims was thoroughly set out in the court's prior order, to make the court's current conclusion clear the court will briefly summarize that discussion.
12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(14)(B). FIRREA "does not revive stale state-law claims: that is, if the limitations period on a state claim has run before RTC is appointed conservator or receiver, RTC may not bring that claim under FIRREA." O'Bear, Overholser, Smith & Huffer, 840 F.Supp. at 1283.4
Id. Applying this reasoning, the court reached the conclusion mentioned above that Hometown's state-law claims did not accrue, i.e. that the limitations period for the state-law claims did not begin to run, until the adverse domination of Hometown's board was ended by the appointment of RTC as receiver. See id. at 1284-85. This analysis is equally applicable to RTC's professional and general negligence claims against the attorney defendants.5
Id. at 1285. This reasoning would apply in equal force to the attorney defendants' alleged negligence. The reasoning is sound.
Based on the current record, however, it appears that the court's reasoning does not lead to the conclusion reached in the court's prior order. Specifically, it is now clear that the named defendants were not the only ones in a position to — on behalf of Hometown — know of, and acquiesce in, the alleged negligence of the state-law defendants.
As early as 1984 the RTC's predecessor regulatory body, the FHLBB, became concerned about Hometown's involvement in the five loans at issue. See Attorney Defendants' Ex. 9 at ¶ 3.6 As a result of an FHLBB investigation, in 1985 the FHLBB and Hometown's directors entered into a supervisory agreement. See id. at Ex. A. The agreement indicated that FHLBB was "of the opinion that Hometown had violated...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shapo v. O'Shaughnessy
...unnecessarily delayed once he had standing to sue on Alpine's behalf. The Defendants cite to Resolution Trust Corporation v. O'Bear, Overholser, Smith & Buffer, 886 F.Supp. 658 (N.D.Ind.1995), to support their argument that the statute of limitations ran as soon as the Liquidator issued the......
-
Resolution Trust Corp. v. Franz
...sense application of the discovery rule to a corporate plaintiff." 895 F.Supp. at 1078. Similarly, in RTC v. O'Bear, Overholser, Smith & Huffer, 886 F.Supp. 658 (N.D.Ind.1995), the court made the connection on the basis of Indiana law. It wrote that "there is no direct Indiana authority equ......
-
Navarro v. Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd., 93 C 3203.
...present only conclusions shown to arise out of a reasoning process based on a firm foundation. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. O'Bear, Overholser, Smith & Huffer, 886 F.Supp. 658 (D.Ind.1995). 4 The court recognizes that Hales may rely on otherwise inadmissible and unsworn material in forming......
- Wade v. Byles