Nationsbank, N.A. v. Ames Savings & Loan Ass'n (In Re First American Mortgage Co.)

212 B.R. 479, 34 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 830, 1997 Bankr. LEXIS 1326, 1997 WL 529722
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland
DecidedJune 11, 1997
Docket19-11613
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 212 B.R. 479 (Nationsbank, N.A. v. Ames Savings & Loan Ass'n (In Re First American Mortgage Co.)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nationsbank, N.A. v. Ames Savings & Loan Ass'n (In Re First American Mortgage Co.), 212 B.R. 479, 34 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 830, 1997 Bankr. LEXIS 1326, 1997 WL 529722 (Md. 1997).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING JUDGMENT TO NATIONSBANK, N.A.

JAMES F. SCHNEIDER, Bankruptcy Judge.

The instant complaint was brought by Equitable Bank [now Nationsbank, N.A.] against 77 defendants to determine the ownership of funds in the amount of $458,732.05, which the Bank setoff prepetition against mutual claims that existed between the Bank and the debtor. At the time of this opinion, there remain only six defendants (the “Remaining Defendants”), namely, Ames Savings Bank, F.S.B. (successor to Ames Savings and Loan Association); Met *481 ropolitan Federal Bank of Minnesota, F.S.B. (successor to First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Grand Rapids); Metropolitan Federal Bank of Iowa, F.S.B. (successor to Pioneer Federal Savings and Loan Association); Community Federal Savings and Loan Association; Yankton Savings and Loan Association of Yankton, South Dakota; and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (successor to the Resolution Trust Corporation as receiver of Statesman Federal Savings Bank, successor to Perpetual Savings and Loan Association, and receiver of First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Thief River Falls). For the reasons stated, the complaint will be granted in favor of the Bank and the claims of the Remaining Defendants will be disallowed. Stipulations of fact submitted by the parties have been adopted by this Court as Findings of Fact Nos. 1-17.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. This case arose from the collapse of First American Mortgage Company (“FAM-CO”). FAMCO, its predecessor (initially named First American Mortgage Company and, after October 1982, named MH Mortgage Company), its affiliates, and its subsidiaries, were in the business of extending credit secured by mortgage interests in the borrowers’ residences. FAMCO frequently lent to individuals with poor credit backgrounds and received junior lien positions on their properties. The portfolio involved high risk of default as well as higher than usual prepayments by borrowers.

2. Equitable Bank, N.A. (“Equitable”), predecessor to Plaintiff, was the banker for FAMCO, MH Mortgage, and the many FAMCO subsidiaries (the “FAMCO Entities”). In November 1985, Equitable had outstanding substantial credit to FAMCO. The FAMCO Entities maintained various bank accounts at Equitable.

3. FAMCO had a separate mortgage servicing company named FAM Mortgage Servicing (“FAMMS”). Its function was to service the mortgages originated by FAMCO. The Remaining Defendants had contractual relationships with FAMMS pursuant to which they received payments on the mortgages they held.

4. The mechanics of payment receipt at Equitable were as follows: payments were received from borrowers in a lockbox (a post office box to which only Equitable had access) maintained in the name of FAMMS. As set. forth in paragraph 37 of the complaint, the lockbox account was set up at Equitable for the collection of principal and interest payments on outstanding mortgages that FAMMS was servicing for third parties, including the Remaining Defendants, and the funds contained in the lockbox account were payments received from FAMCO borrowers. The lockbox funds were, pursuant to standing instructions of FAMMS, automatically transferred to the FAMMS demand deposit account, where they were commingled with other FAMCO Entities. Equitable knew that FAMCO’s source of funds,- in large part, consisted of the monies it so collected from FAMCO borrowers which it then transferred into its various checking accounts. At the end of each month, FAMMS gave instructions to Equitable regarding payment of the funds to other financial institutions, including Equitable, that held FAMCO mortgages. Those payments were frequently, but not always, made from the FAMMS demand deposit account.

5. The Remaining Defendants purchased mortgages from FAMCO that were serviced by FAMMS. The Remaining Defendants had mortgage Servicing Agreements with FAMMS. Attached hereto is a copy of the prototype Mortgage Servicing Agreement entered into between FAMMS and the Remaining Defendants. 1 Equitable was not a party to the Mortgage Servicing Agreements but had knowledge that same existed. The Mortgage Servicing Agreements, inter alia, required FAMMS to hold “in trust” the funds collected from the mortgagees for benefit of the Remaining Defendants and to remit them to the Remaining Defendants on a monthly basis. The Mortgage Servicing Agreement further provided that “[n]o mon *482 eys relating to Mortgage Loans being serviced for the Remaining Defendants shall be commingled with the moneys of FAMMS.”

6. Initially, FAMMS forwarded to holders of FAMCO mortgages (including the Remaining Defendants) the payments that had been received in a given month from borrowers whose notes those holders owned. That practice was discontinued, however, and FAMMS began sending the holders of the mortgages (including the Remaining Defendants) a lump sum payment representing all amounts that were due in a given month on all mortgages owned by the holder.

7. None of the Remaining Defendants opened a trust account at Equitable to receive payments from FAMCO borrowers, which would have specially segregated payments received from persons whose mortgages the Remaining Defendant owned.

8. None of the Remaining Defendants established a trust account with Equitable to receive FAMCO payments. Funds received representing payment on mortgages owned by the Remaining Defendants were automatically placed into the FAMMS checking account and used in the ordinary course of FAMMS’ operations.

9. During the summer of 1985, the FAM-CO Entities experienced severe financial difficulties. Equitable expressed a willingness to increase its funding to the FAMCO Entities and, in July 1985, Equitable and FAM-CO entered into a Mortgage Service Sale and Repurchase Agreement.

10. Between July and November 1985, Equitable made advances to FAMCO pursuant to the Mortgage Sale Service and Repurchase Agreement, and two working capital loans, in excess of $15,000,000. The working capital loans consisted of a $1,500,000 advance on October 9 and a $400,000 advance on November 4. They were secured by mortgages held by Equitable in its FAMCO portfolio.

11. On November 15, 1985, at 8:32 a.m., Equitable set off against FAMCO’s debts the funds then on deposit in the FAMCO Entities’ accounts. These amounts included $237,067.51 in the FAMCO checking account and $221,664.54 in the FAMMS servicing lock-box account (into which the daily lock-box receipts were deposited). (These two accounts are collectively referred to as the “Accounts.”) 2

12. On November 15, 1985, FAMCO ceased doing business. On December 3, 1985, FAMCO filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. On July 31, 1986, the case was converted to a proceeding under Chapter 7.

13. On March 24, 1986, Equitable filed the instant complaint seeking a declaratory judgment establishing the rights to the funds in the Accounts as of the time of the setoff. The 77 defendants included the FAMCO entities and all other parties that Equitable believed might have a claim to any funds in the Accounts.

14(a).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re New Haven Foundry, Inc.
285 B.R. 646 (E.D. Michigan, 2002)
In Re Linzer
264 B.R. 243 (E.D. New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
212 B.R. 479, 34 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 830, 1997 Bankr. LEXIS 1326, 1997 WL 529722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nationsbank-na-v-ames-savings-loan-assn-in-re-first-american-mdb-1997.