Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

789 F.2d 313, 5 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1433, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25001
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 9, 1986
Docket85-1734
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 789 F.2d 313 (Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rauscher Pierce Refsnes, Inc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 789 F.2d 313, 5 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1433, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25001 (5th Cir. 1986).

Opinion

OPINION

EDWIN F. HUNTER, Jr., District Judge:

In this case, we must decide whether the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is a government agency so that the sixty-day period for filing answers applies instead of the usual twenty-day period. The district court answered in the negative, and entered a default judgment against the FDIC because it had not filed its answer within the twenty days of service of the complaint. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that if the defendant is the United States or an officer or agency of the United States, an answer shall be filed “... within 60 days after the service upon the United States attorney of the pleading in which the claim is asserted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(a). Our review of statutory law, case law and the functioning, financing, and management of the FDIC convinces us that it is an agency of the United States as that term is used in Rule 12(a) and defined in 28 U.S.C. 451, and it therefore had 60 days after service to file an answer. The answer was filed within that period. The entry of a judgment by default was error. The district court’s judgment must be REVERSED.

I. TEST TO BE UTILIZED IN DETERMINING WHETHER THE FDIC IS AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES

There is no case on point which specifically addresses the precise issue presented. There are cases which deal with analogous issues.

The Ninth Circuit had to resolve the issue of whether the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (“FSLIC”) was *314 an “agency” as that term is defined in 28 U.S.C. § 451 and 1345. Acron Investments, Inc. v. Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, 363 F.2d 236 (9th Cir.1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 970, 87 S.Ct. 506, 17 L.Ed.2d 434 (1966). The court noted initially that:

The term “agency” includes any department, independent establishment, commission, administration, authority, board or bureau of the United States or any corporation in which the United States has a proprietary interest, unless the context shows that such was intended to be used in a more limited sense.

28 U.S.C. § 451. Appellee contended that the phrase “in which the United States has a proprietary interest” had to mean that the United States must own more than 50% of the stock outstanding in the corporation. The Ninth Circuit emphatically rejected this argument, noting that when the interest of the United States is more than incidental or custodial the corporation meets the definition of agency as contained in Section 451. Acron Investments, Inc. v. Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, supra at 240. Faced with a similar jurisdictional point in a subsequent case, this circuit relied and expanded upon the analysis provided by the Ninth Circuit.

In Government National Mortgage Corporation v. Terry, 608 F.2d 614 (5th Cir. 1979), we had to determine whether the Government National Mortgage Association (“GNMA”) was an “agency” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1345 and thus able to sue as a plaintiff in federal district court. To resolve the uncertainties, the court explored the “proprietary interest” requirement of Section 451. Because GNMA was a government corporation in which stock had not been issued, focus was shifted to indicia other than stock ownership to decide whether the interest of the United States in GNMA was more than incidental or custodial. The Terry court, after a careful examination of the history of the functions, financing, and management of Ginnie Mae and other members of that family tree, concluded that the United States did possess a proprietary interest in those entities sufficient to qualify as a government agency within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 451. Governmental National Mortgage Association v. Terry, supra at 618, 620. We must address the issue currently before the court within the framework of analysis provided by these decisions. 1 This analysis clearly indicates that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is an agency of the United States for purposes of Title 28 of the United States Code and thus Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

II. THE FUNCTION AND OPERATION OF THE FDIC

Literally since the formation of the government of the United States, a strong national currency and a safe and sound banking system have been the keys to stability of the nation. Absent the achievement of these goals, any nation’s lifespan will be shortlived. The need to maintain a strong currency and banking system finally became so critical that the United States government developed over a period of years a comprehensive plan for economic regulation. This plan in part was generated by a plague of bank failures that affected the entire nation throughout the early years of the history of the United States. Several significant measures, including the creation of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve System, helped to alleviate the problem. But even as late as 1929, it became clear that the United States would have to initiate greater control to stabilize the nation’s banks.

*315 The stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression of 1930 focused the attention of Congress upon the need for a solid means of regulation in insuring the nation’s banking system. Congress established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1933 as part of a system to restore public confidence and to safeguard bank deposits through a comprehensive deposit insurance program sponsored and regulated by the national government. FAIC Securities, Inc. v. United States, 768 F.2d 352, 354 (D.C.Cir.1985); Randall, The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Regulatory Functions and Philosophy, 31 LAW & CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS 696, 698 (1966) (hereinafter “Randall, Regulatory Functions and Philosophy ”.)

The role of the FDIC is to regulate banking practices and provide deposit insurance coverage.

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

Related

Federal Home Loan Bank v. Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.
736 F. Supp. 2d 1283 (W.D. Washington, 2010)
Office Depot, Inc. v. United States
95 Fed. Cl. 517 (Federal Claims, 2010)
AccuBanc Mortgage Corp. v. Drummonds
938 S.W.2d 135 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1997)
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Daughan
144 F.R.D. 597 (D. Maine, 1992)
Opinion No. (1991)
Oklahoma Attorney General Reports, 1991
Park Club, Inc. v. Resolution Trust Co.
742 F. Supp. 395 (S.D. Texas, 1990)
Rivera Gonzalez v. Com. of Puerto Rico
726 F. Supp. 10 (D. Puerto Rico, 1989)
Anderson v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
114 B.R. 446 (D. South Carolina, 1989)
Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Manatt
723 F. Supp. 99 (E.D. Arkansas, 1989)
Walton v. Howard University T/A
683 F. Supp. 826 (District of Columbia, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
789 F.2d 313, 5 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1433, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rauscher-pierce-refsnes-inc-v-federal-deposit-insurance-corporation-ca5-1986.