Lovell v. Peoples Heritage
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
January 7, 1994 [Not for Publication]
[Not for Publication]
United States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
For the First Circuit
____________________
No. 93-1552
ANN B. LOVELL, ETC.,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
PEOPLES HERITAGE SAVINGS BANK, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
No. 93-1553
ANN B. LOVELL, ETC., ET AL.
Plaintiffs, Appellants
v.
THE ONE BANCORP, ET AL.
Defendants, Appellees
____________________
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
[Hon. Gene Carter, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
_____________
____________________
Richard E. Poulos with whom John S. Campbell and Poulos &
___________________ __________________ _________
Campbell, P.A. were on brief for appellants.
______________
Robert S. Frank with whom Christopher J. Devlin and Verrill &
________________ ______________________ __________
Dana were on brief for FDIC as receiver for Maine Savings Bank.
____
Rufus E. Brown with whom Drummond Woodsum Plimpton & MacMahon was
______________ ____________________________________
on brief for Frederick W. Pape, Jr.
John F. Batter, III with whom Hale and Dorr was on brief for
_____________________ ______________
Nancy Masterton, as personal representative of the Estate of Robert
Masterton.
Thomas D. Warren, Director, Litigation Unit, with whom Michael E.
________________ __________
Carpenter, Attorney General, and Peter J. Brann, Assistant Attorney
_________ ______________
General, were on brief for Maine Superintendent of Banking.
Catherine R. Connors with whom Ralph I. Lancaster, Jr., Daniel M.
____________________ _______________________ __________
Snow, and Pierce, Atwood, Scribner, Allen, Smith & Lancaster were on
____ ____________________________________________________
brief for Peoples Heritage Savings Bank.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. In these consolidated appeals,
___________
plaintiffs-appellants argue that the district court erred in
summarily disposing of their claims relating to their right
to a distribution of the net worth of two mutual savings
banks (MSBs) following the banks' conversion to stock savings
institutions. See generally Lovell v. Peoples Heritage Sav.
___ _________ ______ _____________________
Bank, 818 F. Supp. 427 (D. Me. 1993); Lovell v. One Bancorp,
____ ______ ___________
818 F. Supp. 412 (D. Me. 1993). We affirm.
Plaintiffs failed to come forward with proof of a
constitutionally-protected property interest in a
distribution of the surplus of the MSBs, the linchpin of the
bulk of their claims. In answering questions certified by
the district court, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court (SJC)
held that Maine law does not give plaintiffs any right to a
distribution of the surplus of MSBs as part of the conversion
process. Lovell v. One Bancorp, 614 A.2d 56, 67 (Me. 1992).
______ ___________
Absent a state property right, plaintiffs' plea for federal
constitutional protection is in vain. Chongris v. Board of
________ ________
Appeals, 811 F.2d 36, 43 (1st Cir.) ("[P]roperty rights,
_______
while protected by the federal Constitution, are creatures of
state law.") (citing, inter alia, Board of Regents v. Roth,
_____ ____ _________________ ____
408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972)), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1021
_____ ______
(1987).
Plaintiffs argue in the alternative that the
Constitution at least protects their contingent interest in a
-2-
2
distribution of the "liquidation accounts" of the new
institutions. These accounts are the current repository of
the reincarnated surplus of the former MSBs. While the SJC
opinion does support plaintiffs' claim to such an interest,
see Lovell, 614 A.2d at 67 (recognizing depositors'
___ ______
contingent interest in a pro rata distribution of a bank's
surplus), plaintiffs have not produced trial-worthy proof
that the contingency -- a solvent liquidation -- would ever
occur. In fact, as the record stands now, it is essentially
undisputed that a solvent liquidation is a very remote
possibility. As a result, the district court may have been
correct in concluding that the contingent interest in the
liquidation accounts did not rise to the level of an
expectancy deserving constitutional protection. See One
___ ___
Bancorp, 818 F. Supp. at 420-21; Peoples Heritage, 818 F.
_______ ________________
Supp. at 431; cf. Society for Sav. v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lovell v. Peoples Heritage, (1st Cir. 1994).
Lovell v. Peoples Heritage (Lovell v. Peoples Heritage) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Society for Sav. in Cleveland v. Bowers
349 U.S. 143 (Supreme Court, 1955)
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
408 U.S. 564 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City
438 U.S. 104 (Supreme Court, 1978)
Allied Structural Steel Co. v. Spannaus
438 U.S. 234 (Supreme Court, 1978)
General Motors Corp. v. Romein
503 U.S. 181 (Supreme Court, 1992)
James Chongris and George Chongris v. Board of Appeals of the Town of Andover
811 F.2d 36 (First Circuit, 1987)
Lovell v. One Bancorp
818 F. Supp. 412 (D. Maine, 1993)
Lovell v. One Bancorp
614 A.2d 56 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1992)
Lovell v. Peoples Heritage Savings Bank
818 F. Supp. 427 (D. Maine, 1993)