Resolution Trust Corporation as Conservator for Sunbelt Federal Savings, Fsb v. George Michael Montross
Cases that cite this one
37 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Haines Pipeline Construction, Inc. v. Exline Gas Systems, Inc. (Okla. Civ. App. 1996)
- The Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co. v. Robert L. Clark, Comptroller of the Currency (5th Cir. 1994)
- Beitzell & Co. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (In re Beitzell & Co.) (District Court, District of Columbia 1993)
- Park Club, Inc. v. Resolution Trust Corp. (5th Cir. 1992)
- Newton v. Uniwest Financial Corp. (9th Cir. 1992)
- Park Club, Inc. v. Resolution Trust Corp. (5th Cir. 1992)
- Newton v. Uniwest Financial Corp. (9th Cir. 1992)
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. Toler (District Court, N.D. Texas 1991)
- Pnl v. Kisd (Tex. App. 2001)
- PNL Asset Management Co. v. Kerrville Independent School District (Tex. App. 2000)
- Rhode Island Depositors Economic Protection Corp. v. Ryan (R.I. 1997)
- Polo Club Office v. Vickers (5th Cir. 1996)
- Divall Insured Income Fund Limited Partnership, a Wisconsin Limited Partnership v. Boatmen's First National Bank of Kansas City (1st Cir. 1996)
- In re Miraj and Sons, Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts 1996)
- Bailey, Vaught, Robertson and Co. v. Remington Investments, Inc. (Tex. App. 1994)
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. Maplewood Investments (4th Cir. 1994)
- Randolph v. Resolution Trust Corp. (5th Cir. 1993)
- Randolph v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1st Cir. 1993)
- St. Bernard Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Cella (United States District Court Eastern District of Louisiana 1993)
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. Wright (In re Still) (5th Cir. 1992)
- Resolution Trust Corp. Ex Rel. Meridian Savings Ass'n v. Oaks Apartments Joint Venture (5th Cir. 1992)
- Irving Independent School District v. Packard Properties (5th Cir. 1992)
- Federal Sav. & Loan Ins. v. Kralj (5th Cir. 1992)
- Irving Independent School Dist. v. Packard Properties (5th Cir. 1992)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The panel held that the federal holder in due course status of Sunbelt Savings, transferee of the notes from the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation as receiver for the insolvent former Sunbelt Savings, does not protect Sunbelt from personal defenses of the maker of a promissory note which was not negotiable from its inception. The panel opinion at 923 F.2d 353 is reinstated, except that we take no position on the effect of the variable interest rate on the negotiability of the note. The maker of the note gave other reasons for the note being non-negotiable, and the case was presented on the appeal with both parties accepting the non-negotiability of the note. Sunbelt’s contention to the contrary before the en banc court comes too late. See Najarro v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n of Nacogdoches, Texas, 918 F.2d 513, 516 (5th Cir. 1990); Moore v. United States, 598 F.2d 439, 441 (5th Cir. 1979).
The personal defenses to which the maker is entitled must, of course, be based on documents of the savings institution at *229 the time of its insolvency and not upon secret agreements unenforceable under D’Oench, Duhme & Co. v. FDIC, 315 U.S. 447, 62 S.Ct. 676, 86 L.Ed. 956 (1942). See Howell v. Continental Credit Corp., 655 F.2d 743 (7th Cir. 1981).
As recited in the conclusion of the panel opinion, the summary judgment in favor of Sunbelt Savings was premature. The case is remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.