Rref Bb Acquisitions, LLC v. Mas Props., LLC

2015 NCBC 58

• Court: North Carolina Business Court
• Decided: June 9, 2015
• Docket: 13-CVS-193
• Status: Published

Opinion

RREF BB Acquisitions, LLC v. MAS Props., LLC, 2015 NCBC 58.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION COUNTY OF BRUNSWICK 13 CVS 193

RREF BB ACQUISITIONS, LLC, ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) ) MAS PROPERTIES, L.L.C. a/k/a MAS ) PROPERTIES LLC; MARK A. SAUNDERS ) and SIBYL H. SAUNDERS, ) OPINION AND ORDER Defendants/Third-Party ) Plaintiffs ) ) v. ) ) BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST ) COMPANY, ) Third-Party Defendant )

THIS CAUSE, designated a mandatory complex business case by Order of the Chief

Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-45.4(b)

(hereinafter, references to the North Carolina General Statutes will be to “G.S.”), and

assigned to the undersigned Special Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Cases,

comes before the Court upon Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendant’s Joint Motion for

Summary Judgment and Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendant’s Motion to Strike Affidavit of

Deborah A. Boodro and Portions of the Affidavits of Douglas T. Yeates, John Marshall and

Mark A. Saunders. On April 22, 2015, the Court held a hearing on the Motions.

THE COURT, after reviewing the Motions, briefs in support of and in opposition to

the Motions, the record evidence filed by the parties, the arguments of counsel, and other

appropriate matters of record, FINDS and CONCLUDES as stated herein.

Poyner Spruill LLP by Daniel G. Cahill, Esq., James S. Livermon, III, Esq. and Richard A. Prosser, Esq. for Plaintiff RREF BB Acquisitions, LLC and Third Party Defendant Branch Banking and Trust Company. Graebe Hanna & Sullivan, PLLC by Christopher T. Graebe, Esq. and Mark R. Sigmon, Esq. for Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs MAS Properties, L.L.C. a/k/a MAS Properties LLC, Mark A. Saunders and Sibyl H. Saunders. McGuire, Judge.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. On January 31, 2013, Plaintiff RREF BB Acquisitions, Inc. (“RREF”)

commenced this action against Defendants by filing its Complaint in Brunswick County

Superior Court. The action was designated as civil action number 13 CVS 193 by the Clerk

of Superior Court of Brunswick County.

2. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges two claims for relief: for breach of a

Promissory Note dated November 6, 1997 (as to Mark Saunders and Sibyl Saunders) (“First

Claim”), and for breach of a Promissory Note and Guaranty of Payment dated February 8,

2005 (as to MAS Properties, Mark Saunders and Sibyl Saunders) (“Second Claim”).

3. On April 29, 2013, Defendants MAS Properties, L.L.C. a/k/a MAS Properties

LLC (“MAS”), Mark A. Saunders (“Mark Saunders”) and Sibyl H. Saunders (“Sibyl

Saunders”) (collectively, “Defendants”) filed an Answer and Counterclaims against Plaintiff,

and a Third Party Complaint naming Branch Banking & Trust Company (“BB&T”).

Defendants allege the following claims for relief against RREF and/or BB&T: (1)First Claim

for Relief [Declaratory Judgment Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-253 to 267]; (2) Second

Claim for Relief [Breach of Contract]; (3) Third Claim for Relief [Breach of the Implied

Covenant of Good Faith & Fair Dealing]; (4) Fourth Claim for Relief [Breach of Duty to

Negotiate in Good Faith]; (5) Fifth Claim for Relief [Misrepresentation/Fraudulent

Concealment]; (6) Sixth Claim for Relief [Breach of Fiduciary Duty/Constructive Fraud]; (7)

Seventh Claim for Relief [Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices]); (8) Eighth Claim for Relief

[Indemnity/Subrogation]; and (9) Ninth Claim for Relief [Violation of Equal Credit

Opportunity Act]. 4. On July 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss and Amended Reply to

Counterclaim. Third-Party Defendant BB&T filed a Motion to Dismiss Third Party

Complaint on August 2, 2013. Pursuant to a stipulation by all parties on July 26, 2013,

Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendant filed a Joint Memorandum in Support of Motions to

Dismiss (“Memo”) on August 2, 2013.1

5. On November 3, 2014, Plaintiff and BB&T filed their Joint Motion for

Summary Judgment, supporting evidentiary materials, and a Memorandum in Support. In

the Joint Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff seeks summary judgment on its two

claims for breach of promissory notes and the guaranties. Plaintiff and BB&T also seek

summary judgment on each of the nine counterclaims/third-party claims made by

Defendants. Defendants filed a response in opposition to the Joint Motion for Summary

Judgment and supporting evidentiary materials including, inter alia, the Affidavits of Debra

Boodro, Douglas T. Yeates, John Marshall and Mark A. Saunders

6. On March 23, 2015 Plaintiff and BB&T filed their Motion to Strike Affidavit of

Debra Boodro and Portions of Affidavits of Douglas T. Yeates, John Marshall and Mark A.

Saunders (“Motion to Strike”). Defendants filed a response in opposition to the Motion to

Strike.

FACTS

7. Defendant Mark Saunders (“Saunders”) has been in real estate development

in North Carolina for roughly thirty years.2 He is currently the principal of a group of

Brunswick County real estate businesses known as “The Coastal Companies.”3 The Coastal

1 The Motions to Dismiss are coextensive with the Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, and

with the consent of the parties, the Court considers the Motions to Dismiss as subsumed in the Motion for Summary Judgment. 2 See Deposition of Mark A. Saunders (“Saunders Dep.”) 15. 3 Dep. Ex. 149; Saunders Aff. ¶ 2; see Deposition of Elaine Jordan (“Jordan Dep.”) 5;. Companies provide services in both commercial and personal real estate development.

Coastal Companies employs in-house counsel, Elaine Jordan (“Jordan”).4

8. Saunders is also the registered agent and a member/manager of Defendant

MAS Properties (“MAS”), a North Carolina limited liability company that conducts business

under the Coastal Companies umbrella.5

9. Plaintiff RREF BB Acquisitions, LLC (“RREF”) is an “acquisition entity” that

acquires primarily real-estate secured loans.6 On December 7, 2012, RREF acquired the loans

at issue in this case from Third-Party Defendant BB&T.7

10. Third-Party Defendant BB&T is a large, well-known North Carolina banking

corporation. In its Code of Ethics, Policies & Procedures, and Philosophy, which are available

to the public, BB&T promotes “honesty,” “integrity,” “open communication,” and

“transparent, extensive communication,” and pledges to avoid “manipulation, concealment,

abuse of confidential information, misrepresentation of material facts, or any other unfair

dealing practice.”8 Mark Saunders has been a customer of BB&T and its local predecessor,

United Carolina Bank (“UCB”), for approximately thirty years.9 During that time, Robert

Cox (“Cox”), BB&T’s agent in the Shallotte, North Carolina office, served as Saunders’

primary contact with BB&T and/or UCB.10 Saunders was among Cox’s largest clients.11

11. The matter currently pending before the Court arises from a dispute over two

loans between BB&T and Defendants. On November 6, 1997, BB&T and Mark Saunders

4 Jordan Dep. 5. 5 Compl. ¶ 2; Countercl. ¶ 1; Dep. Ex. 150 (“2008 MAS Properties Annual Report”); Saunders Dep. 38,

44. 6 30(b)(6) Deposition of RREF BB Acquisitions, LLC by Mark King (“King Dep.”) 5-6. 7 See Dep. Ex. 91 (Purchase Agreement); King Dep. 123-125. 8 Dep. Ex. 2 (“BB&T Code of Ethics”); Dep. Ex. 3 (“Policies and Procedures”) 42; Dep. Ex. 4 (“BB&T

Philosophy”) 8, 20. 9 Saunders Aff. ¶ 2. United Carolina Bank was acquired by BB&T in 1997. Id. 10 Deposition of Robert Cox (“Cox Dep.”) 20, 37; Saunders Aff. ¶ 2. 11 Id. executed a promissory note for a $1,000,000.00 loan to Mark Saunders, with his wife, Sibyl

Saunders, identified as an “Additional Co-maker.”12 On February 8, 2005, BB&T made a

second loan, in the amount of $4,275,000.00, to MAS.13 Mark and Sibyl Saunders entered into

Guaranty Agreements in connection with the 2005 loan to MAS.14 (The 1997 and 2005 loans

are collectively referred to as “the Loans”).

12. Though the original terms of the Loans were for one and three years,

respectively, BB&T and Defendants extended, modified, or renewed the Loans on almost an

annual basis until 2012. Many of these renewals took place after the Loans had reached

maturity.15

13. In early 2012, Bank of America initiated legal proceedings against Defendants

and related entities, seeking recovery on loans worth over $70 million and the appointment

of a receiver.16 In the lawsuit, Bank of America sought the appointment of a receiver to

manage certain of Saunders’ business property based on a default on loans taken with Bank

of America.

14. BB&T became aware of the Bank of America lawsuit and decided not to renew

the Loans.17 On February 2, 2012, one month prior to the maturation date of the Loans,18

Steve Gruendel (“Gruendel”), BB&T outside counsel, sent written notice to Defendants that

BB&T did not intend to renew the Loans.19

12 Dep. Ex. 5 (“1997 Note”). 13 Dep. Ex. 7 (“2005 Note”). 14 Dep. Exs. 8, 9, 140, 179, 180, 181, 182 (original guaranty agreements and subsequent loan modifications). 15 Saunders Aff. ¶ 10; Dep. Exs. 5, 7, 139, 140, 179, 180, 181, 182. 16 See generally Bank of Am. v. E. Carolinas’ Constr. & Dev. LLC, Brunswick Co. No. 12 CVS 33 (N.C.

Super. Ct. filed Jan. 6, 2012). 17 Dep. Ex. 25 (email from Hennessy to Bean); Deposition of Michael Hennessy (“Hennessy Dep.”) 116-

17. 18 Though Defendants dispute whether the Loans in fact matured on that date, Saunders identified

the March 2, 2012 date as the date that the Loans were “Set to mature.” Saunders Dep. 101. 19 Dep. Exs. 26, 27. 15. On February 27, 2012, Saunders and Jordan met with BB&T representative

Cindy Bean (“Bean”) and Gruendel at the Shallotte BB&T Branch to discuss BB&T’s decision

not to renew the Loans.20 At the time of the meeting, Saunders understood that management

of the Loans had been transferred from his primary BB&T contact, Cox, to Bean, and knew

that Bean worked for a “troubled loan/workout sort of department” at BB&T.21 At the end of

that meeting, the parties held a mutual understanding that BB&T would not take any action

on the Loans for 60 days.22

16. On March 2, 2012, the Loans matured under the existing written terms.23

17. On March 6, 2012, BB&T’s outside counsel sent Jordan draft copies of

forbearance agreements that would release BB&T from liability to the Saunders for any

claims arising from the Loans, in exchange for which BB&T was willing to honor the 60-day

wait period to see what happened with the Bank of America receivership motion.24 Saunders

testified in his deposition that he was “unfavorably surprised” by the draft forbearance

agreements, which to his recollection had not been discussed at the February 27 meeting and

which had never been required for previous extensions or modifications of the Loans.25

Defendants did not accept the forbearance agreements, and the agreements were never

executed.26

18. On March 9, 2012, the Honorable John R. Jolly, Jr. denied the Bank of America

receivership motion.27 On March 14, 2012, Gruendel sent Saunders a “reservation of rights”

20 Saunders Dep. 94; Jordan Dep. 68-69; Deposition of Cynthia Bean (“Bean Dep.”) 37-41. 21 Saunders Dep. 96-97. Bean’s title at that time was “Problem Loan Administrator.” Bean Dep. 10. 22 Saunders Dep. 98-99; Deposition of Stephen Gruendel (“Gruendel Dep.”) 18. 23 Saunders Dep. 84, 101; Jordan Dep. 75, 80, 97. 24 Dep. Ex. 144; Saunders Dep. 100-01; Gruendel Dep. 21. 25 Saunders Dep. 100-01. 26 Saunders Dep. 130; Jordan Dep. 76, 113-14. 27 Bank of Am. v. E. Carolinas’ Constr. & Dev. LLC, Brunswick Co. No. 12 CVS 33 (N.C. Super. Ct.

Mar. 9, 2012) (Order on Motions for Appointment of Receiver). notice, informing him that, in spite of Judge Jolly’s order, BB&T remained concerned about

the remaining Bank of America litigation and the mature status of the BB&T Loans. The

notice informed Saunders that BB&T’s forbearance from taking action on the Loans was still

contingent on Defendants’ execution of the forbearance agreements, and that, in the absence

of an executed agreement, BB&T “intend[ed] to commence the exercise of its rights and

remedies with respect to the Loans.”28

19. In or around March 2012, BB&T also began to market the Loans to potential

third-party purchasers.29 On March 23, 2012, Bean emailed Mike Hennessy (“Hennessy”),

the group leader for BB&T’s North Carolina asset resolution group, informing him that the

Loans were “already being marketed.”30 It is undisputed that BB&T never informed

Defendants that it was marketing or attempting to sell the Loans.

20. The parties continued to negotiate the terms of the Loans for several months,

through summer and into fall 2012.31 Nevertheless, in July 2012, BB&T notified Defendants

that it was initiating formal foreclosure proceedings as to the properties securing the Loans.32

21. On October 2, 2012, BB&T created an “internal asset summary form” related

to a possible sale of the Loans.33 On the same date, Bean emailed Saunders a request for

certain financial information to “evaluate a restructure” of the Loans.34 Saunders’ response

28 Dep. Ex. 34. 29 Though Plaintiff’s witnesses identified inconsistent dates on which the Loans were originally marketed, the record suggests that the Loans were marketed as early as January 2012. Saunders Aff. Ex. 1. (Email to Bean and Hennessy dated January 31, 2012, informing Bean and Hennessy of some “interested potential purchasers” for the Loans). 30 Dep. Ex. 35. 31 See, e.g., Dep. Ex. 36 (Letter from Saunders to Bean dated April 4, 2012); Dep. Ex. 42 (Emails

between Jordan and Gruendel dated April 10-11, 2012); Dep. Ex. 58 (Letter from Saunders to Bean dated July 16, 2012); Dep. Ex. 115 (Email from Bean to Saunders dated August 9, 2012); Dep. Ex. 156 (Letter from Saunders to Bean dated October 12, 2012, including financial information requested by Bean during an October 2, 2012 meeting). 32 Dep. Exs. 67-68, 106. The foreclosure hearings were later postponed in exchange for Saunders paying

the interest owed on the Loans. Gruendel Dep. 62-63; see Dep. Exs. 77, 168. 33 Dep. Ex. 13; Hennessy Dep. 53-56; Bean Dep. 22-24. 34 Dep. Ex. 80. stated that he was providing the attached information to “assist BB&T in evaluating

[Defendants’] loan proposals dated July 16, 2012,” and that he was doing so with the

understanding that it would not be used for any other purpose or disclosed to anyone outside

of BB&T.35

22. On or about October 22, 2012, Plaintiff RREF received a copy of the October 2

asset summary regarding the Loans from BB&T.36

23. On October 25, 2012, in anticipation of a meeting scheduled between BB&T

and Defendants, Gruendel sent Defendants a term sheet with BB&T’s proposed terms for

restructure of the Loans.37 The term sheet, labeled “Term Sheet for Discussion Purposes

Only,” contained disclaimers on every page that it did “not constitute any kind of commitment

or undertaking” and that the terms therein were “subject to the internal approval process” of

BB&T.38

24. On October 29, 2012, Saunders, Jordan, and Defendants’ outside counsel, Rick

Rayburn, met with Bean, Hennessy, and BB&T’s legal counsel to discuss terms of a

restructuring of the Loans.39 The parties dispute whether a final “meeting of the minds” was

reached at the October 29 meeting as to all material terms of a restructure agreement, but

the record indicates that the parties agreed on many of the proposed terms contained in the

October 25 term sheets.40 As part of the agreed terms, Saunders was to convey certain real

estate to BB&T in satisfaction of part of the Loan debt. Defendants were also to create a new

legal entity, dubbed “Newco,” to which BB&T would make a new loan to refinance the existing

35 Dep. Ex. 156. 36 King Dep. 54-55, 62-63, 65. 37 Dep. Ex. 95. 38 Id. 39 Deposition of Richard Rayburn (“Rayburn Dep.”) 6; Saunders Dep. 158-59. 40 See, e.g., Jordan Dep. 144; Bean Dep. 114; Gruendel Dep. 71; Saunders Dep. 169. Loans.41 At the end of the meeting, Saunders and Hennessy shook hands in a manner that

Saunders understood to indicate that the parties had reached a deal.42

25. On November 1, 2012, Bean noted in BB&T’s internal loan system that the

October 29 meeting was “successful in negotiating a structure for extension and deeds in lieu

which I will be submitting for approval in the next week or so.”43 On the same date, Gruendel

sent Defendants a term sheet revised to reflect BB&T’s understanding of the terms agreed

upon at the October 29 meeting. The term sheet contained the same disclaimers as the

October 25 term sheet: that it did “not constitute any kind of commitment or undertaking on

the part of the Bank, but [was] intended solely to facilitate discussions on the materials

contained herein,” and that the terms were “subject to the internal approval process.”44

26. On November 19, 2012, Jordan emailed Gruendel a revised version of the

November 1 term sheet, with “changes tracked to meet our understanding of the discussions

we had in Charlotte.”45 Among other things, Defendants’ revised November 19 term sheet

removed Sibyl Saunders as a guarantor and changed Defendants’ obligation to renew a

building permit from an outright obligation to a “best efforts” standard.46

27. On or about November 20, 2012, Hennessy instructed those involved to cease

communications with Saunders and Jordan, because Saunders’ notes were “up for sale.”47 In

his deposition, Hennessy stated that it was BB&T’s policy to go “dark” and cease

communications with clients once their notes were posted for sale.48 Accordingly, BB&T

41 Saunders Dep. 158-69; Jordan Dep. 10-12, 21-28, 144; Rayburn Dep. 67-69. 42 Saunders Dep. 169. 43 Dep. Ex. 98; Hennessy Dep. 264-65; Bean Dep. 119, 150-51. 44 Dep. Ex. 97. 45 Dep. Ex. 100. 46 Id. 47 Hennessy Dep. 150. 48 Id. never responded to Defendants’ November 19 revised term sheet, and did not engage in any

further negotiations with Defendants over a restructure agreement.

28. On December 4, 2012, Jordan sent Gruendel a follow up email regarding the

“term sheet and restructure closing.”49 Gruendel responded that BB&T was “having some

internal discussions still” and that he would be in touch “as soon as [he had] something to

report.”50

29. On December 7, 2012, BB&T closed a transaction with Plaintiff that included

sale of the Loans. On December 13, 2012, Gruendel informed Jordan that BB&T had sold the

Loans to Plaintiff. 51 There is no evidence in this record regarding whether Defendants

attempted to negotiate a restructuring of the Loans with Plaintiff. Defendants contend that,

had they known that the loans were up for sale, they would have attempted to purchase the

Loans themselves or had a third party purchase them on their behalf. 52 They also contend

that had BB&T notified them that the November 1, 2012 term sheet was a “best and final

offer” they would have accepted it.53

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff/BB&T’s Motion to Strike

30. In the Motion to Strike, Plaintiff and BB&T challenge certain testimony

contained in the affidavits of four individuals filed by Defendants, moving the Court to strike

portions of the testimony contained therein and exclude them from the Court’s consideration

of the Summary Judgment Motion. Specifically, the Motion to Strike seeks to exclude from

evidence: (a) the entire affidavit of Deborah Boodro, (b) paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13 and

49 Dep. Ex. 100. 50 Id. 51 Gruendel Dep. 98; Dep. Exs. 87, 171. 52 Defs.’/Third-Party Pls.’ Br. Opp. Mot. Summ. J. (“Defs.’ Br.”) 20-21 53 Id. 14 of Douglas T. Yeates, (c) paragraphs 6 and 7 of the affidavit of John Marshall, and (d)

paragraphs 40 and 41 of the affidavit of Mark Saunders.

31. The Court has considered the Strike Motion, the briefs supporting and

opposing the Strike Motion, and the affidavits addressed by the Strike Motion, and concludes,

in its discretion, that the Strike Motion should be DENIED.

Plaintiff/BB&T’s Motion for Summary Judgment

32. Plaintiff and BB&T have moved for summary judgment both as to Plaintiff’s

claims, pursuant to Rule 56(a), and as to the counter and third-party claims raised by

Defendants, pursuant to Rule 56(b). The claims in this action arise from the maturation of

the Loans in March 2012, the negotiations to restructure the Loans, and BB&T’s sale of the

Loans to Plaintiff in December 2012. Plaintiff and BB&T contend the parties were

sophisticated business entities engaged in an arms-length negotiation to restructure two

commercial loans, that the negotiations ultimately were unsuccessful, and that BB&T then

lawfully exercised its right to sell the loans to Plaintiff. BB&T also contends that it had no

duty to disclose to Defendants that BB&T was attempting to sell the Loans while the parties

were attempting to negotiate a restructure agreement. Accordingly, Plaintiff and BB&T

argue that they are entitled to summary judgment on its claims for breach of the Loans and

as to Defendants’ third-party claims and counterclaims.

33. Defendants contend that Defendants and BB&T reached an agreement to

restructure the Loans at the October 29, 2012 meeting, but that BB&T then refused to honor

and subsequently breached the agreement when it sold the Loans to Plaintiff. Defendants

also contend that BB&T and Defendants had a long, multifaceted, and unique lender-

borrower relationship that created a duty on BB&T to disclose to Defendants that BB&T was

attempting to sell the loans. Defendants argue that BB&T’s failure to make such disclosure

amounted to a fraud on Defendants. Finally, Defendants contend that even if a final and enforceable agreement on a restructure was not reached, BB&T had a duty to continue

negotiating in good faith towards reaching a restructure agreement after the October 29

meeting that required BB&T to inform Defendants that the November 1, 2012 term sheet

was BB&T’s best and final offer.

34. “Summary judgment is appropriate 'if the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a

matter of law.'” Variety Wholesalers, Inc. v. Salem Logistics Traffic Servs., LLC, 365 N.C.

520, 523 (2012) (quoting Rule 56(c)). Any inference of fact should be drawn against the

movant. Forbis v. Neal, 361 N.C. 519, 523-524 (2007) (citing Caldwell v. Deese, 288 N.C. 375,

378 (1975)). A genuine issue of material fact will require the court to preserve the issue for a

finder of fact. Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N. Va, 367 N.C. 81, 90 (2013). Although the Court

must view the record “in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion,” Rule

56(e) provides that summary judgment may not be defeated by “mere allegations or denials,”

but rather that the opposition must be supported by “specific facts showing that there is a

genuine issue for trial.” Patterson v. Reid, 10 N.C. App. 22, 28 (1970).

35. The interrelated nature of a number of the claims raised by the parties in this

action require the Court address them out of their actual sequence in the pleadings.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

36. In its Sixth Claim for Relief, Defendants allege that “BB&T owed the

[Defendants] fiduciary duties as a result of the confidential and fiduciary relationship

between BB&T and [Defendants].”54 Defendants allege that BB&T “had a duty to disclose

all material facts to [Defendants]” and “to act in good faith and with due regard for the

54 Countercl. ¶ 86. [Defendants’] best interests,” and that “BB&T’s misrepresentations and material omissions

were in breach of its fiduciary duties to [Defendants].”55

37. A fiduciary relationship has been defined under North Carolina law to exist

when “there has been a special confidence reposed in one who in equity and good conscience

is bound to act in good faith and with due regard to the interests of the one reposing

confidence.” Dallaire v. Bank of Am., N.A., 367 N.C. 363, 367 (2014) (quoting Green v.

Freeman, 367 N.C. 136, 141 (2013)). Fiduciary relationships are those “in which there is

confidence reposed on one side, and resulting domination and influence on the other.” Dalton

v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647, 651-52 (2001) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Abbitt v. Gregory, 201

N.C. 577, 598 (1931)).

38. There is no reported North Carolina appellate case in which a fiduciary

relationship has been found in a borrower-lender transaction. Dallaire, 367 N.C. at 368

(“Ordinary borrower-lender transactions . . . are considered arm’s length and do not typically

give rise to fiduciary duties.”); Sec. Nat'l Bank of Greensboro v. Educators Mut. Life Ins. Co.,

265 N.C. 86, 95 (1965) (“There was no fiduciary relationship; the relation was that of debtor

and creditor.”); see also Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Thompson, 107 N.C. App. 53, 61

(1992) (The “mere existence of a debtor-creditor relationship between [the parties does] not

create a fiduciary relationship.” (alteration in original) (citations omitted)); Lassiter v. Bank

of N.C., 146 N.C. App. 264, 268 (2001) (“A lender is only obligated to perform those duties

expressly provided for in the loan agreement to which it is a party.”). Despite this fact, our

Supreme Court has opined that “it is possible, at least theoretically, for a particular bank-

customer transaction to give rise to a fiduciary relationship under the proper circumstances.”

55 Id. ¶¶ 87, 89, 91. Dallaire, 367 N.C. at 368 (citation omitted). Defendants contend that the facts in this case

present just such “proper circumstances.”

39. The facts surrounding the relationship between BB&T and Saunders are

largely undisputed, although the parties’ characterizations of the relationship differ.

Saunders and his businesses have banked with the same Shallotte branch of BB&T for

approximately 30 years.56 Saunders worked with one BB&T banker, Robert Cox, for over 25

years.57 Saunders took out 16 commercial loans with BB&T over the years, and at one point

had over $25 million on deposit with the Shallotte branch.58 Saunders, however, also had

significant relationships with other banks, including loans worth roughly $70 million from

Bank of America.59 BB&T also acted as the retail banker for contractors and purchasers of

lots in Saunders’ communities, making over $250 million dollars’ worth of residential

mortgage loans.60 Saunders assisted BB&T charity fundraising campaigns.61

40. Saunders characterizes BB&T as an “advisor and confidant” with whom he met

to “assess market conditions” in the local real estate market. BB&T encouraged Saunders to

make a 1999 purchase of a community known as “SeaScape,” and provided him advice

regarding building additional model homes.62 Saunders also acknowledges, however, that at

least as of early 2012, BB&T was treating the relationship like a typical borrower-lender one.

In February 2012, BB&T advised Saunders that it did not intend to renew the Loans that

the full balances were due on March 2, 2012. In early March 2012, BB&T for the first time

sought to have Saunders sign forbearance agreements, and in mid-2012, BB&T initiated

56 Saunders Aff. ¶ 2. 57 Id. 58 Id. ¶ 3. 59 Id. ¶ 11. 60 Id. ¶¶ 4-5. 61 Id. ¶ 6. 62 Id. ¶ 4. foreclosure proceedings against properties securing the Loans. Certainly, as of mid-2012, at

the latest, BB&T made it clear that it viewed the Loans as a business transaction in which

it intended to protect its own interests

41. The facts in this case do suggest that Saunders had a trusted, long-term

business relationship with BB&T that was mutually beneficial to both. Saunders worked

closely with BB&T in financing, developing various residential communities and in selling

the homes in those communities. The facts do not, however, create a genuine issue of fact

regarding whether BB&T stood in a fiduciary relationship with Saunders. To the contrary,

“common to all [fiduciary] relationships is a . . . duty of the fiduciary to act in the best interests

of the other party.” Dallaire, 367 N.C. at 367. It would seem nearly antithetical to require a

commercial lender to put a borrower’s interests ahead of its own in a business transaction.

Id. at 368 (“[T]he law does not typically impose upon lenders a duty to put borrowers’ interests

ahead of their own.”). While our appellate courts have held out the possibility that

“theoretically” a lender-borrower relationship could create a fiduciary duty, it is difficult to

conceive a situation in which a banking lender would owe a fiduciary duty to a sophisticated

and experienced business customer.

42. The Eastern District of North Carolina’s recent decision in The Caper

Corporation v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 7:12-CV-357-D, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119506

(E.D.N.C. Aug. 22, 2013), is instructive. Although Caper Corporation involved a Rule 12(b)(6)

motion, the allegations at issue were strikingly similar to the facts present in this case. In

Caper Corporation, the action arose out of the plaintiff borrower’s “dissatisfaction with a loan

contract and an associated interest rate swap contract that the parties entered in 2005.” Id.

at *1. The plaintiff alleged claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, duress, breach of

fiduciary duty, constructive fraud, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. Id. The plaintiff

alleged a 30 year relationship with Wells Fargo, and that Wells Fargo was a “trusted advisor” with “superiority, control, and influence” over the plaintiff. Id. at **22-23. The plaintiff also

alleged that it chose to enter into the transaction at issue with Wells Fargo, even though it

did not offer the best loan terms, because of the plaintiff’s longstanding and close relationship

with Wells Fargo. The plaintiff contended that Wells Fargo had “a duty to act in the best

interests of its customers, including [the plaintiff].” Id. at *23. The Court held that the

plaintiff was a “sophisticated business entity that for a number of years acquired, developed,

and sold a variety of real properties.” Id. at *24 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

The borrower “simply was unable through negotiation to convince Wells Fargo” to restructure

the loan transaction in the manner the plaintiff desired. Id. Finally, the Court held that the

plaintiff had “failed to plausibly allege any circumstance beyond an arm’s-length, creditor-

debtor relationship between a bank and a sophisticated, repeat business customer.” Id. at

*25. Accordingly, the district court dismissed all of the plaintiff’s claims. Id. at *37.

43. In addition, even if a fiduciary relationship had existed between BB&T and

Defendants, such relationship ceased once BB&T declared Defendants in default of the Loans

and the positions of the parties became adverse. Indeed, as of early 2012, Defendants and

BB&T were represented by attorneys and were negotiating to protect their respective best

interests. In such circumstances, no fiduciary obligation exists between the parties, and

BB&T “did not have an affirmative duty to disclose unfavorable facts” regarding its strategy

in the restructuring negotiations. Piedmont Inst. of Pain Mgmt. v. Staton Found., 157 N.C.

App. 577, 583-84 (2003) (finding that the fiduciary relationship between the parties ended at

the point that “both parties were represented by counsel” and “were negotiating for the

termination of legal rights”).

44. This Court reaches the same conclusion as the court in Capers. Although the

facts show a significant relationship existed between Saunders and BB&T, they simply are

not sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact regarding the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s and BB&T’s motion for summary

judgment with regard to Defendant’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty should be GRANTED.

Defendants’ Claim for Fraudulent Concealment

45. In their Fifth Claim for Relief, Defendants allege that BB&T committed fraud

against Defendants by failing to disclose to Defendants that BB&T was marketing and

attempting to sell the Loans while it was at the same time negotiating with Defendants to

restructure the Loans.63 In order to establish actual fraud, Defendants must show (1) a false

representation or concealment of a material fact, (2) reasonably calculated to deceive, (3)

made with an intent to deceive, (4) which does in fact deceive, (5) resulting in damage to the

injured party. Forbis v. Neal, 361 N.C. 519, 526-27 (2007). “Additionally, reliance on alleged

false representations [or concealment] must be reasonable.” Sullivan v. Mebane Packaging

Grp., Inc., 158 N.C. App. 19, 27 (2003). Reliance is unreasonable where the plaintiff could

have discovered the truth through reasonable diligence, but did not investigate. Id.

Defendants contend that BB&T had a duty to disclose, and concealed from Defendants, that

it was trying to sell the Loans. Defendants further argue that even if BB&T did not have a

duty to disclose, it created a duty to disclose by its representations regarding its corporate

honesty, integrity and transparency in dealing with customers.

46. In order to avoid summary judgment on their claim for fraud, Defendants

must demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether BB&T had a duty to

disclose, and concealed, that it was trying to sell the Loans. A claim for fraud may be based

upon a failure to disclose a material fact only where the party had a duty of disclosure. Hardin

v. KCS Int'l, Inc., 199 N.C. App. 687, 696 (2009). Such a duty arises (a) when the parties have

a fiduciary relationship, (b) where a party to an arms-length transaction “has taken

63 Countercl. ¶ 75. affirmative steps to conceal material facts from the other,” or (c) where a party knows of a

“latent defect in the subject matter of the negotiations about which the other party is both

ignorant and unable to discover through reasonable diligence.” Harton v. Harton, 81 N.C.

App. 295, 297-98 (1986); see also Friedland v. Gales, 131 N.C. App. 802, 807 (1998). In

addition, if a party to a negotiation undertakes to speak, that party is then under a duty to

disclose as to the matters about which the party has chosen to speak. Ragsdale v. Kennedy,

286 N.C. 130, 139 (1974) (“The rule is that even though a vendor may have no duty to speak

under the circumstances, nevertheless if he does assume to speak he must make a full and

fair disclosure as to the matters he discusses.”).

47. BB&T was not in a fiduciary relationship with Defendants. There also is no

evidence in the record that suggests that BB&T took “affirmative steps” to hide that it was

marketing and attempting to sell the loans. There was no representation made to

Defendants, express or implied, that BB&T would not sell the loans if the circumstances

warranted it. Nor is there evidence, such as internal BB&T communications, that BB&T

directed their representatives involved in the negotiations with Defendant to conceal the fact

that it was attempting to sell the loans. Accordingly, the record evidence fails to create an

issue of fact that BB&T took “affirmative steps” to conceal that it was attempting to sell the

Loans, and BB&T therefore did not have a duty to disclose on that basis.

48. Typically, commercial parties in arms-length negotiations with one another do

not have a duty to disclose. See B&F Slosman v. Sonopress, Inc., 148 N.C. App. 81, 86 (2001)

(finding that the defendant had no duty to disclose to the plaintiffs where the plaintiffs “were

sophisticated businessmen, who were experienced with transactions involving commercial

leases”); Computer Decisions, Inc. v. Rouse Office Mgmt. of N.C., Inc., 124 N.C. App. 383

(1996) (holding that where the two parties were sophisticated in negotiating commercial real

estate transactions, the lessor did not have a duty to disclose to the lessee that it was negotiating a lease with another party for the same premises); C.F.R. Foods, Inc. v. Randolph

Dev. Co., 107 N.C. App. 584, 589 (1992) (holding a commercial vendor owed no duty to disclose

to a commercial vendee the presence of a landfill containing organic materials where vendee

had full opportunity to make pertinent inquiries and failed to do so). As discussed above,

even a party who formerly owed a fiduciary duty is no longer required to disclose once the

parties are in adversarial positions and are represented by counsel, as BB&T and Defendants

were here. Piedmont Inst. of Pain Mgmt., 157 N.C. App. at 583-84.

49. Defendants contend that “BB&T had a duty to speak under the totality of the

circumstances . . . because it knew about a ‘defect’ in the subject matter of the negotiations

and because it chose to speak and thus took on the duty to make ‘full and fair’ disclosure that

it was marketing the [Loans].”64 Defendants claim that the “totality of circumstances” that

created BB&T’s duty to disclose included the parties’ long-term, close business relationship

and history of loan renewals; BB&T’s conduct during the restructuring negotiations in 2012;

BB&T’s public representations regarding its honesty, integrity and transparency; and

BB&T’s policy of ceasing communications with a customer once it puts a loan up for sale.

50. The “totality of the circumstances,” however, includes all of the undisputed

facts and not just those on which Defendants have chosen to focus. Here, the undisputed

facts also show that Saunders and MAS were sophisticated business parties with vast

experience in the real estate business and in loan transactions. The undisputed facts further

establish that in January 2012, BB&T advised Defendants that it would not renew the Loans

and demanded payment in full on or before March 2, 2012. BB&T also sought forbearance

agreements from Defendants, initiated foreclosure proceedings and sent Defendants multiple

notices that BB&T reserved all rights with regard to the Loans. The loan restructuring

64 Defs.’ Br. at 20 (emphasis in original). negotiations were handled by individuals with whom Saunders had not previously dealt and

who were associated with BB&T’s troubled loans group. Both parties were represented by

counsel from the time BB&T notified Defendants of the default until the sale of the Loans to

Plaintiff. Accordingly, the undisputed facts make it clear that BB&T did not treat the

restructuring of the Loans in the same fashion that it had treated prior extensions and

modifications of the Loans with Saunders.

51. With regard to BB&T’s representations about its honesty, integrity and

transparency, these types of general and vague corporate “puffing” could not reasonably have

lead a businessman of Saunders’ experience to believe that BB&T would not sell the Loans.

In addition, it is undisputed that Defendants were not aware of BB&T’s policy of ceasing

communications with borrowers once BB&T put the customer’s loans up for sale. In other

words, Defendants could not have relied upon the fact that BB&T was negotiating with them

up until November 19, 2012, as an affirmative indication that BB&T was not attempting to

sell the loans.

52. The Computer Decisions, Inc., 124 N.C. App. 383, and B&F Slosman, 148 N.C.

App. 81, decisions are instructive on a commercial business entity’s duty to disclose during

negotiations with another business entity. In Computer Decisions, Inc., the plaintiff

corporation was negotiating with Defendant Rouse to lease commercial office space. 124 N.C.

App. at 385. Rouse was aware that the plaintiff had a short deadline for securing new office

space. Id. at 385-86. At an in-person meeting, the parties reached verbal agreement on the

key terms of an initial lease, but left certain other terms undecided. Nevertheless, Rouse’s

vice president stated, “[w]e have a deal.” Id. The parties later circulated draft terms which

Rouse signed, but the parties continued to negotiate over final terms. Id. at 386.

Unbeknownst to the plaintiff, Rouse was also negotiating with another prospective tenant to

lease the same office space while it was negotiating with the plaintiff. Shortly before the plaintiff needed to move into the new office space, Rouse notified the plaintiff that it had

rented the space to another party. Id. Computer Decisions brought claims against Rouse for

breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair trade practices. The fraud

claim was based on Rouse’s failure to disclose to the plaintiff that it was negotiating with

another tenant. Id. at 388-89. The trial court granted summary judgment on all claims,

finding that (1) any verbal agreement was unenforceable under the statute of frauds, and (2)

Rouse had no duty to disclose its negotiations with the other tenant. Id. In affirming

summary judgment, the Court of Appeals held that “there is no duty of disclosure in a

commercial real estate transaction between commercial parties.” Id. at 389.

53. In B&F Slosman, the plaintiff Slosman was negotiating the terms of an

extension and expansion of a lease for plant space with the defendant corporation, Sonopress,

Inc. (“Sonopress”). Despite several exchanges of written proposals and summaries of terms,

the parties never reduced the new lease to writing. 148 N.C. App. at 83-84. Slosman,

however, alleged that Sonopress had represented that “the parties had an agreement,” and

that the lease was being signed by Sonopress. Id. at 86. Sonopress moved into the expanded

space and began paying rent. Id. at 84. Sonopress subsequently refused to enter into a

written lease, vacated the premises, and stopped paying rent. Id. Slosman sued Sonopress

for breach of lease, unjust enrichment, and unfair and deceptive business practices, and at

trial the court directed a verdict in Sonopress’ favor on all claims. Id. at 82. On appeal,

Slosman argued that Sonopress was estopped from relying on the statute of frauds in defense

of the claim for breach of lease because Sonopress fraudulently failed to disclose during the

negotiations (1) that the lease was subject to a corporate approval process, (2) that Sonopress

had no intention of agreeing to a five year lease term, and (3) that it had rejected written

lease terms proposed by Slosman. Id. at 86-87. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal

of the lease claim on statute of frauds grounds, holding that Sonopress did not have a duty to disclose because Slosman was a “sophisticated business[ ]” and was “experienced with

transactions involving commercial leases.” Id. at 87.

54. In this case, the undisputed facts are that Defendants were sophisticated

business entities highly experienced in commercial real estate loan transactions. It also is

undisputed that Defendants were fully on notice of the adversarial nature of the restructure

negotiations with BB&T from the very beginning and were represented by counsel

throughout the negotiations. Whatever past negotiations between Defendants and BB&T for

loan extensions may have looked like, the 2012 restructure negotiations clearly were “arms-

length.” BB&T never made any express representations to Defendants that it would not sell

the loans, nor could Defendants reasonably have assumed BB&T would not sell the loans

merely because it negotiated with Defendants over the course of several months. Under these

facts, BB&T was not under a duty to disclose Defendants that it was attempting to sell the

Loans.65 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s and BB&T’s motion for summary judgment on Defendants’

claim for fraud should be GRANTED.

Defendants’ Claim for Breach of Contract

55. The Court will next consider the question of whether Defendants and BB&T

reached a binding, enforceable agreement to modify the Loans at the October 29, 2012

meeting. Determination of this question is critical to the analysis of both of Plaintiff’s claims

for collection on the Loans, and impacts some of Defendants’ remaining claims. In their

Second Claim for Relief, Defendants allege that the parties reached “a definitive, binding

agreement to modify and restructure the two loans” at the October 29, 2012 meeting, that

BB&T repudiated and breached the agreement by selling the Loans to Plaintiff, and that

65 At the hearing, Defendants’ counsel admitted that had BB&T disclosed that it was attempting to

sell the Loans, Defendants could have declared bankruptcy, leaving BB&T with limited opportunity to fully collect on the Loans. Defendants’ counsel claimed, however, that Defendants were acting in good faith and would not have declared bankruptcy. Plaintiff breached that agreement by refusing to abide by the agreement reached between

Defendants and BB&T.66

56. Plaintiff and BB&T move for summary judgment on Defendants’ breach of

contract claim on the grounds that the agreement being negotiated by the parties involved

both the conveyance of real property and a commercial loan commitment of more than

$50,000, and was therefore subject to the statute of frauds. Plaintiff and BB&T contend that

since the agreement was not reduced to writing, it cannot be enforced.67 Defendants contend

that Plaintiff and BB&T should be estopped from raising the statute of frauds because BB&T

failed to disclose that it was trying to sell the Loans, and thereby committed fraud.68

57. The North Carolina Court of Appeals has recently restated the long-

established proposition that “[i]f a contract falls within the statute of frauds, the party

against whom enforcement is sought may generally avoid enforcement if there is no written

memorandum of that party’s assent to the contract.” Plasma Ctrs. of Am., LLC v. Talecris

Plasma Res., Inc., 222 N.C. App. 83, 89 (2012). In North Carolina “[a]ll contracts to sell or

convey any lands . . . shall be void unless said contract, or some memorandum or note thereof,

be put in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or by some other person

by him thereto lawfully authorized.” G.S. § 22-2. In addition, G.S. § 22-5 requires any

“commercial loan commitment . . . for a loan in excess of [$50,000]” to be in writing and signed

by the party to be bound. Again, it is undisputed that the agreement Defendants seek to

enforce involved the restructuring of loans far in excess of $50,000 and the conveyance of

certain lands from Defendants to BB&T. It also is undisputed that no written agreement

was ever signed by the parties.

66 Countercl. ¶¶ 53-59. 67 Pl. & Third-Party Def.’s Joint Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. (“Pl.’s Mem.”) 14-16. 68 Defs.’ Br. at 12-15. 58. Defendants do not dispute that the North Carolina statute of frauds would

apply to the agreement allegedly reached on October 29, 2012. Instead, Defendants argue

that BB&T should be equitably estopped from raising the defense of the statute of frauds in

this case because it had a “duty to disclose” to Defendants that it was trying to sell the Loans

and failed to do so. The North Carolina Supreme Court has recognized that “in proper cases

an estoppel predicated upon grounds of silence or fraud may override the statute of frauds.”

Powell v. City of Newton, 364 N.C. 562, 568 (2010) (quoting Callaham v. Arenson, 239 N.C.

619, 626 (1954)). “When faced with oral agreements involving real property interests, our

courts have limited the application of the equitable estoppel doctrine to situations where the

party seeking to invoke the statute of frauds has engaged in ‘plain, clear and deliberate

fraud.’” Macon Bank v. Gleaner, __ N.C. App. __, __, 770 S.E.2d 114, 119 (2015) (quoting B

& F Slosman, 148 N.C. App. 81 (internal citations omitted)). Thus, application of estoppel is

predicated on a finding of actual fraud. Id.

59. For the same reasons discussed fully above with regard to Defendants’ claim

for fraud, the Court concludes that BB&T did not have a duty to disclose under the

undisputed facts in this record, and Defendants’ contention that Plaintiff should be estopped

from raising the statute of frauds fails as a matter of law. Since the Court concludes that any

agreement reached at the October 29, 2012 meeting would had to have been put in writing

pursuant to G.S. §§ 22-2 and 22-5, Plaintiff’s and BB&T’s motion for summary judgment on

Defendants’ claim for breach of contract is GRANTED.69

Defendants’ Claim for Declaratory Judgment

69 Plaintiff and BB&T also argue that no binding agreement was reached between the parties on

October 29, 2012 because there was no “meeting of the minds” since the parties did not agree on all material terms and because the written terms subsequently exchanged between the parties contained language expressly disclaiming that an agreement had been reached. Because the Court has concluded that Defendants’ claim should be dismissed because of the statute of frauds, it does not reach this argument. 60. In their First Claim for Relief, Defendants seek a declaratory judgment

pursuant to G.S. §1-253 et seq. and North Carolina Rule of Civil Procedure 57. In summary,

Defendants seek a declaration regarding (a) whether the parties reached a binding and

enforceable agreement to restructure the loans, and (b) whether BB&T has the “legal right”

to sell the Loans to Plaintiff.70 Plaintiff and BB&T seek summary judgment in their favor as

the claim for declaratory relief pursuant to Rule 56(b).

61. Under North Carolina law, a declaratory judgment is a statutory remedy that

grants a court the authority to “declare rights, status, and other legal relations” when an

“actual controversy” exists between parties to a lawsuit. G.S. § 1-253; Pine Knoll Shores v.

Carolina Water Serv., Inc., 128 N.C. App. 321, 321-22 (1998). Summary judgment may be

granted on a claim for declaratory judgment if there remain no issues of material fact and

either party is entitled to relief as a matter of law. Smith v. Marez, 217 N.C. App. 267, 270

(2011) (internal citation omitted).

62. With regard to Defendants’ request for a declaration addressing the existence

and enforceability of an agreement to restructure the loans, for the reasons stated above, the

Court concludes the parties did not reach a binding and enforceable agreement to restructure

the Loans.

63. The promissory notes and deeds of trust comprising the Loans contain no

restrictions whatsoever on BB&T’s right to sell the loans.71 There are no other facts in the

record that suggest BB&T’s right to sell the Loans was restricted. In addition, Defendants

do not make any argument that, absent an enforceable restructure agreement, BB&T did not

have the “legal right” to sell the Loans to a third party, including RREF.

70 Countercl. ¶¶ 47-52. 71 Dep. Exs. 5, 7. 64. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s and BB&T’s motion for summary judgment on

Defendants’ claim for declaratory judgment regarding the existence of a binding agreement

to restructure the Loans and regarding BB&T’s right to sell the Loans to Plaintiff is

GRANTED in Plaintiff’s and BB&T’s favor.

Plaintiff’s Claims for Breach of Promissory Notes and Guaranties

65. The Court will next consider Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its

two claims for breach of the Loans. In its First Claim for Relief, Plaintiff alleges that Mark

and Sibyl Saunders breached their obligations under the promissory note dated November 6,

1997. In the Second Claim for Relief, Plaintiff alleges that MAS breached its obligations

under the promissory note dated February 8, 2005, and that Mark and Sibyl Saunders

breached their obligations under the guaranty agreements that each of them executed on

February 8, 2005. It is undisputed that the Loans were assigned by BB&T to Plaintiff on

December 7, 2012, and RREF is now the holder of the Loans.

66. The facts regarding Plaintiff’s claims for relief are undisputed. Defendants do

not dispute that they executed the promissory notes and guaranties, that the loans provided

pursuant to the promissory notes matured, that Defendants defaulted in their obligations

once the promissory notes matured, and that Defendants have not repaid the Loans.

Defendants’ sole defense to these claims is based on their contention that Defendants and

BB&T reached a binding and enforceable agreement to restructure the Loans, and

accordingly, that they have a new agreement with BB&T. As discussed above, the Court

already has concluded that BB&T and Defendants did not enter into a binding and

enforceable agreement to restructure the Loans.

67. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a

matter of law on its First Claim for Relief as to Mark Saunders, and its Second Claim for Relief as to Mark Saunders and MAS Properties. The Motion for Summary Judgment as to

Plaintiff’s First and Second Claims for Relief should be GRANTED as to those parties.

68. However, in light of Defendant Sibyl Saunders’ affirmative defense regarding

the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, discussed below, the Court finds that the Motion for

Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s First and Second Claims for Relief should be DENIED

as to Sibyl Saunders.

Defendants’ Claim and Affirmative Defense for Violation of the ECOA

69. Movants seek summary judgment on Defendants’ affirmative defense under

the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”).72 Defendants’ Eleventh Affirmative Defense

alleges that BB&T violated the ECOA73 and the related regulations adopted pursuant to the

ECOA (“Regulation B”)74 by requiring Sibyl Saunders to co-sign the 1997 Loan and guarantee

the 2005 Loan when Mark Saunders and MAS were independently creditworthy.

Defendants’ Eleventh Affirmative Defense contends that Plaintiff’s claims are barred based

upon BB&T’s violation of the ECOA.

70. The ECOA prohibits creditors from discriminating against “any applicant,

with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction . . . on the basis of race, color, religion,

national origin, sex or marital status.” 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a). 15 U.S.C. § 1691b provides the

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System with the authority to “prescribe

regulations to carry out the purposes of” the ECOA. These regulations are collectively known

as “Regulation B.”

71. Regulation B provides in pertinent part:

(d) Signature of spouse or other person.

72 Defendants originally alleged that BB&T violated the ECOA as their Ninth Claim for Relief, but

voluntarily dismissed that claim in response to Plaintiff’s and BB&T’s Motion to Dismiss and purported to incorporate the allegations from the Claim into their Eleventh Affirmative Defense. 73 The ECOA is codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq. 74 12 CFR 202.1 et seq. (1) Rule for qualified applicant. Except as provided in this paragraph, a creditor shall not require the signature of an applicant's spouse or other person, other than a joint applicant, on any credit instrument if the applicant qualifies under the creditor's standards of creditworthiness for the amount and terms of the credit requested. A creditor shall not deem the submission of a joint financial statement or other evidence of jointly held assets as an application for joint credit.

[. . . .] (5) Additional parties. If, under a creditor's standards of creditworthiness, the personal liability of an additional party is necessary to support the credit requested, a creditor may request a cosigner, guarantor, endorser, or similar party. The applicant's spouse may serve as an additional party, but the creditor shall not require that the spouse be the additional party.75 The FDIC has issued Guidance on Regulation B stating that “if a creditor routinely requires

spousal guarantees . . . . without first ascertaining whether an applicant is creditworthy, then

the conditioning of the loan on the spousal guarantee violates § 202.7(d)(1).”76

72. The North Carolina Court of Appeals has recently suggested that a violation

of the ECOA may serve as an affirmative defense in an action brought by a lender against a

guarantor-spouse. RL Regi N.C., LLC v. Lighthouse Cove, LLC, __ N.C. App. __, 748 S.E.2d

723 (2013), rev’d on other grounds, RL Regi N.C., LLC v. Lighthouse Cove, LLC, 367 N.C.

425 (2014). In RL Regi, the guarantor spouse had signed a forbearance agreement with the

bank that “waiv[ed] and releas[ed] any claims . . . [and] release[d] and discharge[d] the

Lender . . . from any and all claims, defenses and causes of action.” RL Regi N.C., LLC, 367

N.C. at 426. On appeal to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, the Supreme Court found

that the defendant had validly waived her ECOA claims as part of a “voluntary settlement,”

75 Regulation B, 12 C.F.R. § 202.7(d) (2015). 76 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Financial Institution Letters: Guidance on Regulation B

Spousal Signature Requirements (2004), available at https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2004/fil0604a.html. which was not a “precondition to the original contract for credit.” Id. at 429-430 (citing

Ballard v. Bank of Am., 734 F.3d 308, 314 (4th Cir. 2013)).

73. During her deposition, Sibyl Saunders testified that she signed the promissory

notes at issue “simply because [she] was Mark’s spouse . . . . It was just something that the

bank required in order for him to do what he needed to do businesswise.”77 Cox stated during

his deposition that BB&T’s regular practice was to require a personal guaranty by the spouse

of the borrower unless the borrower requested otherwise.78 Conversely, Hennessy stated that

he did not believe that spousal guaranties were required as a matter of course on commercial

real estate loans during the time period at issue, but that he could not say for certain without

seeing the loan documents.79 A question of fact therefore exists as to whether Sibyl Saunders

voluntarily signed the Loan promissory notes or was required to do so as Mark Saunders’

spouse, in violation of the ECOA.

74. Furthermore, the Court is persuaded that an issue of fact exists as to whether

Sibyl Saunders has waived any ECOA defense. The modification agreements signed in

connection with the Loans “affirm[ed] any and all obligations to [BB&T] and certif[ied] that

there [were] no defenses or offsets against said obligations.”80 This language is much

narrower in scope than the language addressed by the Supreme Court in RL Regi N.C., LLC.,

and is susceptible of multiple interpretations. Where a contract is ambiguous, the parties’

intent is a question of fact that must be resolved by a finder of fact. Cleland v. Children’s

Home, Inc., 64 N.C. App. 153, 157 (1983) (citing Silver v. Bd. of Transp., 47 N.C. App. 261,

268 (1980)).

77 Deposition of Sibyl Saunders 43. 78 Cox Dep. 49-50. 79 Hennessy Dep. 52. 80 See, e.g., Dep. Exs. 139-140, 179-182. 75. The Court finds that issues of fact exist as to whether BB&T required Sibyl

Saunders to sign the Loans in violation of the ECOA, and whether Sibyl Saunders has waived

any ECOA defense by signing the modification agreements at issue. Summary judgment is

therefore DENIED as to this defense and as to Plaintiff’s ability to recover against Sibyl

Saunders on their First and Second Claims for Relief.

Defendants’ Claim for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith

76. Defendants allege as a Third Claim for Relief that “[u]nder the various loan

agreements between BB&T and [Defendants], BB&T impliedly covenanted to them that it

would deal with them fairly and in good faith.”81 Defendants allege that BB&T breached this

covenant of good faith by its entire course of conduct including, inter alia: declaring the Loans

in default; failing to renew the Loans once the motion for receivership was denied in the Bank

of America lawsuit; failing to disclose to Defendants that it was attempting to sell the Loans;

requesting confidential financial information from Saunders that BB&T then disclosed to

Plaintiff; failing to abide by the alleged agreement to restructure the loan; and selling the

loans to Plaintiff for an inadequate sum without first offering them to Defendants.82 Since

the Court has determined that the undisputed facts establish that the parties did not enter

into a binding and enforceable agreement to restructure the Loans, Defendants’ claim must

be based on an implied covenant arising from the Loans themselves or from some other

agreement. Macon Bank, 2015 N.C. App. LEXIS 221 *9, n. 2.

77. In North Carolina, “[i]n every contract there is an implied covenant of good

faith and fair dealing that neither party will do anything which injures the right of the other

to receive the benefits of the agreement.” SunTrust Bank v. Bryant/Sutphin Prop., LLC, ___

81 Countercl. ¶ 62. 82 Id. ¶ 63. N.C. App. __, 732 S.E.2d 594, 603 (2012) (quoting Bicycle Transit Auth. v. Bell, 314 N.C. 219,

228 (1985)). A breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing “requires the

wrongful intent of a party to deprive another party of its contractual rights.” Hamm v. Blue

Cross & Blue Shield of N.C., 2010 NCBC 14, ¶80 (citing Dull v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 85

N.C. App. 310, 318 (1987)).

78. Preliminarily, given the Court’s rulings in this Order regarding Defendants’

fraud and breach of contract claims, Plaintiff and BB&T’s motion for summary judgment on

Defendants’ claim for breach of the covenant of good faith, to the extent Defendants’ claim is

premised on BB&T’s failure to disclose and breach of the alleged agreement to restructure

the Loans, is GRANTED.

79. The other conduct on which Defendants rely in support of their claim simply

does not create an issue of fact regarding whether BB&T breached of a duty of good faith and

fair dealing arising from the Loans. Defendants allege that BB&T somehow duped Saunders

into providing financial and other information to a real estate consultant, Mathias Linden,

to be used in its foreclosure efforts and not for a restructuring agreement.83 The evidence in

the record does not support this allegation. In fact, the evidence cited by Defendants in

support of this allegation does not show that BB&T misled Saunders, nor does it establish

for what purpose Linden was retained.84 To the contrary, Bean’s email to Saunders

introducing Linden stated only that he was “a real estate consultant [ ] retained by BB&T to

assist BB&T in certain situations” and that he would “aid BB&T in evaluating the proposal

you have submitted to BB&T regarding your loans with BB&T.”85 More significantly,

83 Defs.’ Br. at 7. 84 Ex. 115; Hennessy Dep. 216-17; Gruendel Dep. 50-51. 85 Ex. 115. Defendants have not pointed to any facts in the record showing that the information provided

to Linden was used for any purpose other than evaluating the restructuring proposals.

80. Similarly, the evidence does not create any genuine issue of fact that BB&T

acted unfairly or in bad faith by not offering Saunders the opportunity to buy the Loans before

it sold them to Plaintiff. BB&T was not under a contractual or any other obligation to offer

to sell the loans to Saunders. In addition, Hennessy testified without contradiction that

BB&T would not sell a defaulted loan back to the customer at a discount because this would

be “a direct benefit to the guarantor who didn’t honor the obligations to begin with.”86

81. Ultimately, the undisputed facts establish that BB&T did not breach a duty of

good faith and fair dealing arising from the Loans. Rather, the restructure negotiations were

an arms-length, adversarial process. Both BB&T and Defendants took actions that they

believed necessary to protect their own financial interests while continuing to attempt to

reach a resolution on the restructure. For example, Defendants refused to execute the

forbearance agreements requested by BB&T. The undisputed facts also show that although

Defendants were in default on a multi-million dollar loan, BB&T did not immediately and

aggressively pursue its rights to foreclose. Instead, BB&T negotiated with Defendants for

over eight months and agreed upon most of the significant elements of a potential

restructure, but finally decided to protect its interests by selling the Loans to a third party.

Defendants have failed to create an issue of fact regarding their claim for breach of a duty of

good faith and fair dealing, and Plaintiff’s and BB&T’s motion for summary judgment on this

claim should be GRANTED.87

86 Hennessy Dep. 293-95. 87 BB&T also argues that since there was no breach of the underlying contract (the Loans), Defendants

cannot establish a breach of a duty of good faith arising from the Loans. In support of their argument, BB&T cites to SunTrust Bank v. Bryant/Sutphin Prop., LLC, 222 N.C. App. 821 (2012), in which the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of a claim for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, holding “[a]s the jury determined that plaintiff did not breach any of its contracts with Defendants’ Claim for Breach of Duty to Negotiate in Good Faith

82. As a Fourth Claim for Relief, Defendants have alleged that BB&T breached a

duty to negotiate in good faith.88 Defendants allege that “if the Court finds that BB&T and

[Defendants] did not reach a binding agreement, they had nevertheless agreed on all terms

necessary to reach a binding agreement, and the parties therefore had a duty to negotiate

and finalize the agreement in good faith.”89 Defendants allege that BB&T breached this duty

by “repudiating the agreement” and selling the Loans to Plaintiff.90 Defendants argue that

even if no binding and enforceable agreement was reached on October 29, 2012, a finder of

fact could still conclude that the parties reached a binding agreement to continue to negotiate

in good faith, which BB&T breached by failing to inform Defendants that the November 1

term sheet was its final offer and failing to communicate with BB&T after November 19,

2012.91

83. BB&T contends that North Carolina has never recognized a claim for a duty to

negotiate in good faith, and urges the Court not to do so in this case. Defendants concede

North Carolina has not expressly recognized such a claim, but argue that it should under

these facts. Defendants rely primarily on two cases recognizing a duty to negotiate that were

defendants, it would be illogical for this Court to conclude that plaintiff somehow breached implied terms of the same contracts.” Id. at 833. Defendants cite to the United States District Court’s decision in Robinson v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., No. 5:12-CV-590-F, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50797 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 9, 2013), in which the court analyzed North Carolina appellate law but did not expressly discuss the Robinson decision, and rejected the precise argument urged by BB&T here, namely, that there must be some “other” breach of the express contract for a breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing claim to survive. Since the Court has determined that Defendants’ claim fails for other reasons, it does not address Plaintiff’s argument. 88 Countercl. ¶¶ 66-70. 89 Id. ¶ 67. 90 Id. ¶ 68. 91 Defs.’ Br. At 17-18. decided under the laws, respectively, of West Virginia and New York, Burbach Broad. Co. of

Del. v. Elkins Radio Corp., 278 F.3d 401, 408-09 (4th Cir. 2002) and Sony Ericsson Mobile

Comm. USA, Inc. v. Agere Systems, Inc., 2007 NCBC 28 (N.C. Super. Ct. 2007), aff’d, 195

N.C. App. 577 (2009). In Burbach, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that it was

“following the modern trend in contract law” and held that West Virginia would recognize a

claim based on a “binding preliminary agreement” between parties to continue negotiations

in good faith without being bound to ultimately agree on a contract. 278 F.3d. at 407-09. The

Court based its conclusion in part on the grounds that West Virginia already recognized a

claim for good faith and fair dealing arising from a contract. Id. at 409. The Fourth Circuit

adopted the analysis applied by the court in Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assoc. of Am. v. Tribune

Co., 670 F. Supp. 491 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), and described the “binding preliminary agreement” as

follows:

[The] agreements do not commit the parties to their ultimate contractual objective. Rather, they commit the parties to negotiate the open issues in good faith in an attempt to reach the contractual objective within the agreed framework. Under this duty to negotiate in good faith, a party is barred from renouncing the deal, abandoning the negotiations, or insisting on conditions that do not conform to the preliminary agreement. 278 F.3d at 407. The Court further noted that:

This obligation does not guarantee that the final contract will be concluded if both parties comport with their obligation, because good faith differences in the negotiation of the open issues may prevent the parties from reaching a final contract. It is also possible that the parties will lose interest due to changed circumstances and will mutually abandon the negotiation.

Id. at n.2.

84. In Sony Ericsson Mobile, the Honorable John R. Jolly, Jr. of this Court,

applying New York law, also recognized a claim based on a “binding preliminary agreement,”

describing it as follows:

A preliminary agreement to negotiate is similar to a preliminary agreement with open terms in that the parties agree to certain primary terms of the agreement and leave other terms to be negotiated. It is, however, different from a preliminary agreement with open terms in that the parties do not agree to be bound by any substantive terms, but rather agree to continue to negotiate all terms in good faith. Accordingly, a party to such an agreement is not bound by the substantive terms of the agreement, although it may be obligated to negotiate. Such agreement may be enforceable. 2007 NCBC at ¶ 18 n.5 (citing 1 Farnsworth on Contracts, § 3.8a, n.4 (3d ed. 2004); Ashland

Mgmt., Inc. v. Janien, 82 N.Y.2d 395, 624 N.E.2d 1007 (N.Y. 1993)).

85. Other courts also have held in accord with Burchbach and Sony Ericsson and

adopted the reasoning in Teacher’s Ins. & Annuity Ass’n v. Tribune Co. to enforce preliminary

agreements to negotiate in good faith. See, e.g., Stanford Hotels Corp. v. Potomac Creek

Assoc.., L.P., 18 A.3d 725, 735 (D.C. 2011)(citing Teacher’s Ins. & Annuity Ass’n, 670 F. Supp.

491, and recognizing enforceability of a binding preliminary agreement to negotiate in good

faith); Gurley v. King, 183 S.W.3d 30 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (same); Cochran v. Norkunas,

398 Md. 1, 919 A.2d 700 (Md. 2007)(same). Other courts have recognized a claim based on

an agreement to negotiate in good faith without specific reliance on Teacher’s Ins. & Annuity

Ass’n. See e.g., Venture Assoc. Corp. v. Zenith Data Syst. Corp., 987 F.2d 429, 433 (7th Cir.

1993); Itek Corp. v. Chicago Aerial Ind., Inc., 248 A.2d 625 (Del. 1968); 1 E. Allan Farnsworth,

Farnsworth on Contract, § 3.26b (3d ed. 2004) (numerous cases cited therein).

86. In its recent decision in Butler v. Balolia, 736 F.3d 609 (1st Cir. 2013), the First

Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that Washington would recognize a claim based on a

binding agreement to negotiate. Id. at 614-16. In reaching this conclusion, the court

conducted an exhaustive analysis of case law, treatises and other scholarly writings and

found that:

[T]wo things seem clear. First, many more jurisdictions have recognized the enforceability of contracts to negotiate than have repudiated the doctrine. . . . Second, the trend line appears to be moving steadily in favor of recognizing a cause of action for breach of a contract to negotiate. 736 F.3d at 614 (citations omitted). The court also considered the policy and practical

arguments in favor of, and against, the recognition of such a claim, and held that those

considerations weighed in favor of finding that Washington would join the “trend line.” Id.

87. Defendants argue that the course of the negotiations, the substantial number

of terms upon which the parties reached agreement on October 29, 2012, and BB&T’s words

and conduct following the October 29 meeting created an agreement between the parties to

continue to negotiate in good faith towards a final agreement. Accordingly, Defendants

contend that BB&T “was required at a minimum to inform [Defendants]” that the November

1 term sheet was a final offer, and that the failure to do so coupled with BB&T ceasing

communications with Defendants constituted a breach of the duty.92 The facts in this case

show that the parties reached agreement on almost every material term of a restructure

agreement on October 29, 2012. Defendants have presented evidence that “BB&T stressed

that the deal needed to, and would, close before the end of the year,” and that at the

conclusion of the meeting “Saunders and Hennessy shook hands to acknowledge the

agreement reached.”93 On November 1, 2012, Bean made an entry in BB&T’s internal system

that the parties “were successful in negotiating a structure for extension and deeds in lieu

which I will be submitting for approval in the next week or so.” In addition, on November 1,

2012, Gruendel emailed Jordan a revised term sheet summarizing the terms on which BB&T’

believed the parties had reached agreement. The term sheet stated that it was “to facilitate

discussion on the terms contained herein.”94 BB&T, however, never notified Defendants that

BB&T considered the November 1 term sheet the last, best and final terms that BB&T would

accept, leading Defendants to conclude that they could request further revisions, as they did

92 Id. at 18. 93 Defs.’ Br. at 8-9. 94 Dep. Ex. 97 (emphasis added). on November 19. Defendants have presented evidence that had Defendants accepted the

November 1, 2012 term sheet, the restructure deal would have closed.95

88. The Court concludes that, based on the unique facts present in this case,

Defendants’ claim for breach of a duty to negotiate in good faith may be viable. First, as

discussed above, other jurisdictions have recognized such a claim and the trend is in favor of

recognizing such claims. Second, North Carolina already implies in every contract a duty of

good faith and fair dealing. The Court sees no reason that an agreement to continue

negotiating in good faith would not be enforceable, provided that it met all of the

requirements for contract formation under North Carolina law. A jury could conclude that

while the parties did not reach a final agreement on all of the material terms of a restructure

deal in the October 29, 2012 meeting, their words and conduct established an agreement to

continue negotiating in attempt to finalize the terms of the agreement and close on a

restructure agreement before the end of 2012.96 While it did not bind either party to the final

terms of a restructure deal, such an agreement would carry with it an implied obligation that

the parties to conduct any further negotiations of the terms in good faith. A jury also could

find that BB&T’s failure to notify Defendants that the November 1, 2012 term sheet was its

best and final offer after months of negotiations, and BB&T’s decision to cease

communications with Defendants after Defendants responded to the term sheet, were not

“fair dealing” or in “good faith.” Accordingly, the Court concludes that there are disputed

issues of fact regarding whether the parties entered in an agreement to continue negotiating

in good faith, and whether BB&T breached such an agreement, and that Plaintiff’s and

95 Hennessy Dep. 274; Saunders Aff. ¶ 34. 96 North Carolina recognizes that oral agreements may constitute enforceable contracts. See, e.g., Kornegay v. Aspen Asset Gp., LLC, 204 N.C. App. 213, 221 (2010). Of course, Defendants still would be required to show that all elements of an enforceable contract under North Carolina law, including the consideration exchanged for the agreement. BB&T’s motion for summary judgment as to Defendants’ Fourth Claim for Relief should be

DENIED.

Defendants’ Claim for Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices

89. In their Seventh Claim for Relief, Defendants allege that BB&T and Plaintiff

committed unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of G.S. § 75-1.1 et seq.

Defendants allege that “BB&T’s and [Plaintiff’s] breaches of contract are accompanied by

substantial aggravating circumstances, including” BB&T providing Defendants’ “confidential

financial information” to Plaintiff.97 In their brief, Defendants contend that their unfair and

deceptive practices claim is not “exclusively based on a breach of contract with substantial

aggravating circumstances.”98 Rather, Defendants allege that the claim is based on

“fraudulent concealment, lying, reliance, and damage from the other claims” raised by their

Complaint.99 Plaintiff and BB&T contend that the claim for unfair

90. G.S. § 75-1.1 declares unlawful any “[u]nfair methods of competition in or

affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” To

state a claim under G.S. § 75-1.1, a plaintiff must allege (1) that the defendant committed an

unfair or deceptive act or practice, or unfair method of competition, (2) in or affecting

commerce, (3) which proximately caused actual injury to the plaintiff or his business. Birtha

v. Stonemor, N.C., LLC, 220 N.C. App. 286, 298 (2012), disc. rev. denied, 366 N.C. 570 (2013).

“A practice is unfair when it offends public policy and when the practice is immoral,

unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers.” Gupton v. Son-

Lan Dev. Co., Inc., 205 N.C. App. 133, 143 (2010) (quoting Walker v. Branch Banking & Trust

Co., 133 N.C. App. 580, 583 (1999)). “Stated another way, a party is guilty of an unfair act or

97 Countercl. ¶¶ 95-97. 98 Defs.’ Br. 17-18. 99 Id. practice when it engages in conduct which amounts to an inequitable assertion of its power

or position.” Id. (citation omitted). “A practice is deceptive if it has the capacity or tendency

to deceive.” Id. (citation and alteration omitted).

91. The Court has concluded that that issues of material fact exist regarding

Defendants’ claim for breach of duty to negotiate in good faith. The same conduct upon which

Defendant might be able to establish that BB&T acted unfairly or in bad faith arguably also

could be sufficient to constitute conduct that is unfair or deceptive within the meaning of G.S.

§ 75-1.1. Accordingly, the Court concludes that there are material issues of disputed fact

which must be resolved in order to make a determination on Defendants’ claim for unfair and

deceptive trade practices, and that Plaintiff’s and BB&T’s motion for summary judgment as

to Defendants’ Seventh Claim for Relief should be DENIED.100

Defendants’ Claim for Indemnity

92. Finally, in their Eighth Claim for Relief, entitled “Indemnity/Subrogation,”

Defendants contend that, to the extent that Defendants are found to be liable to RREF, this

liability is derivative of BB&T’s actions and that BB&T should be liable in the amount of any

judgment entered against Defendants in favor of RREF.

93. Under North Carolina law, a right of indemnification may arise in three

circumstances: (1) an express contract; (2) a contract implied-in-fact; and (3) a contract

implied-in-law. Carl v. State, 192 N.C. App. 544, 557-58 (2008).101 In Defendants’ brief in

100 The Court also notes that the parties dispute whether or not Defendants suffered injury as a result

of BB&T’s conduct in this case. 101 Because Defendants have since identified their claim as one for indemnification, the Court’s

analysis will focus on that legal theory instead of subrogation. Subrogation is an equitable concept that allows for “the substitution of one person in the place of another with reference to a lawful claim or right.” Gen. Ins. Co. v. Faulkner, 259 N.C. 317, 324 (1963) (internal quotations omitted). “Subrogation rights are categorized as either the right of conventional subrogation—that is, subrogation by agreement between the insurer and the insured—or the right of equitable subrogation, by operation of law, upon the payment of the loss.” In re A Declaratory Ruling by the N.C. Comm’r of Ins. Regarding 11 N.C.A.C. 12.0319, 134 N.C. App. 22, 31 (1999) (internal quotations omitted). Even response to the Motion to Dismiss, Defendants explicitly stated that “Defendants’ indemnity

claim is an indemnity implied-in-law claim.”102 Defendants go on to say that the Court should

not “get tangled in the label for the claim for relief,” because Defendants are “simply claiming

that” BB&T must bear any of Defendants’ liability to RREF.103 The parties do not dispute

that Counterclaim Eight “rises or falls” with Defendants’ other Counterclaims.104

94. “[T]he indemnity implied-in-law arises from an underlying tort, where a

passive tort-feasor pays the judgment owed by an active tort-feasor to the injured third

party.” Kaleel Builders, Inc. v. Ashby, 161 N.C. App. 34, 39 (2003). The “implied contract”

arises from the passive tort-feasor’s discharge of an obligation owed by the active tort-feasor,

which entitles the passive tort-feasor to recover from the active tort-feasor. Id.

95. Therefore, for this doctrine to apply to the case at bar, Defendants would be a

“passive tort-feasor” and, more significantly, BB&T would have to be the “active tort-feasor”

against RREF. There are no claims in this case suggesting that BB&T has committed a tort,

either directly or through Defendants, against RREF. Though Defendants urge the Court

not to be constrained by the doctrine of indemnification, Defendants have presented the

Court with no other legal basis from which to conclude that BB&T should be liable for any

debt owed by Defendants to RREF. Plaintiff’s and BB&T’s motion for summary judgment as

to Defendants’ claim for indemnification/subrogation should be GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

NOW THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, it hereby is ORDERED that:

if the legal doctrine of subrogation were to extend to a situation like that before the Court, it is undisputed that there exists no “subrogation by agreement” and that Defendants have not yet paid any amount due under the loans such that equitable subrogation would be appropriate. Subrogation is therefore not appropriately before the Court at this time. 102 Defs.’ Br. Opp. Pl.’s & Third-Party Def.’s Joint Mot. Dismiss 22. 103 Id. 104 Pl.’s Mem. 24; Defs.’ Br. at 23. 96. Plaintiff and Third-Party Defendants’ Motion to Strike Affidavit of Deborah A.

Boodro and Portions of the Affidavits of Douglas T. Yeates, John Marshall and Mark A.

Saunders is DENIED.

97. As to Plaintiff’s First and Second Claims for Relief, the Motion for Summary

Judgment is GRANTED regarding Mark Saunders and MAS Properties. The Motion for

Summary Judgment is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s First and Second Claims for Relief regarding

Sibyl Saunders.

98. To the extent that the Motion for Summary Judgment seeks summary

judgment on Defendants’ Eleventh Affirmative Defense, the Motion is DENIED.

99. As to Defendants’ First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Claims for

Relief, the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

100. As to Defendants’ Fourth and Seventh Claims for Relief, the Motion for

Summary Judgment is DENIED.

101. In light of Defendants’ representation to the Court that they are no longer

pursuing their Ninth Claim for Relief, Defendants’ Ninth Claim for Relief is deemed

DISMISSED, without prejudice.

This the 9th day of June, 2015.

/s/ Gregory P. McGuire Gregory P. McGuire Special Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Cases