St. Hillaire v. FDIC
Opinion
USCA1 Opinion
January 19, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 93-1648
ST. HILAIRE & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
D/B/A CORSO ELECTRIC CO., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, ETC., ET AL.,
Defendants Appellees.
__________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Shane Devine, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
___________________
Before
Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
______________
___________________
Gray H. Reiner, Reiner and Bouffard on brief for
_________________ ______________________
appellants.
Ricky L. Brunette, Law Office of Susan J. Szwed on brief for
_________________ ______________
appellees.
__________________
__________________
Per Curiam. Appellant, St. Hilaire & Associates, Inc.,
___________
D/B/A Corso Electric Co., and Albert St. Hilaire, appeal the
dismissal of their action against the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation [FDIC], as receiver for Numerica Bank,
Federal Savings Bank [Numerica], and the Resolution Trust
Corporation [RTC], as conservator for Homebank Federal
Savings Association [Homebank FSA]. We vacate the dismissal
and remand to the district court for further proceedings.
We take the following facts from the record, accepting
the facts pleaded in the complaint as true. In 1987 or 1988,
Albert St. Hilaire [St. Hilaire], president of St. Hilaire,
Inc. [the corporation], sought financing from Numerica Bank
of Manchester, New Hampshire. Subsequently, officers and
agents of Numerica indicated to St. Hilaire that they had
transferred to Homebank, Federal Savings Bank [Homebank FSB],
a fully owned subsidiary of Numerica. They also requested
that he allow them to transfer the financing arrangements for
the corporation to Homebank FSB as well. St. Hilaire agreed,
and in 1988, financing totalling approximately $450,000 was
provided by Homebank FSB. In 1991, Homebank FSB refused to
extend further credit to the corporation, and, as a result,
the corporation was forced to cease business operations.
Effective October 10, 1991, Numerica was declared
insolvent and the FDIC was appointed receiver. Homebank FSB
was closed on the same date. The RTC was appointed receiver
-2-
of Homebank FSB. In its capacity as receiver, the RTC
entered into a Purchase and Assumption Agreement with
Homebank FSA, whereby essentially all of the assets and some
of the liabilities of Homebank FSB were transferred to
Homebank FSA. Among the assets transferred were the St.
Hilaire notes. The RTC was appointed conservator of Homebank
FSA.
In 1992, the RTC as conservator of Homebank FSA brought
suit against the corporation and against St. Hilaire in the
United States District Court for the District of Maine
seeking collection of the notes. In their answer to the
complaint, St. Hilaire and the corporation raised various
affirmative defenses. St. Hilaire asked, in particular,
that, if he were found personally liable on the note, he be
allowed to set off any claims which he would have against the
Numerica and Homebank as a result of administrative claims
which he had already initiated pursuant to 12 U.S.C.
1821(d). On October 23, 1992, the court granted summary
judgment to the RTC and found St. Hilaire personally liable.
On October 5, 1992, St. Hilaire and the corporation
initiated the instant suit in the United States District
Court for the District of New Hampshire. The complaint seeks
damages from the FDIC as receiver of Numerica and against the
RTC as conservator of Homebank FSA for breach of an implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing; for violation of a
-3-
joint venture agreement; and for breach of an oral contract.
The RTC as conservator filed a motion to dismiss alleging
that appellants had failed to file a claim under the
administrative claims process prior to commencing suit and
that, therefore, the federal court was without jurisdiction
to hear the claim pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(13)(D).
The RTC also sought dismissal on the grounds of res judicata.
___ ________
The district court dismissed the entire case on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction. It did not address the issue of res
___
judicata.
________
As the FDIC notes in its brief, "[t]his appeal comes to
this Court in a state of procedural confusion." First, the
FDIC advises this court that it never moved for dismissal
below. Not only should the district court not have
dismissed the complaint against the FDIC without such a
motion, see Greene v. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co., 764 F.2d 19,
___ ______ _______________________
21-22 (1st Cir. 1985), but the FDIC also admits that it is
not entitled to such relief since appellants did file an
administrative claim with the FDIC. The claim was denied and
hence is properly before the district court. 12 U.S.C.
1821(d)(6)(A).
Second, the RTC as conservator now concedes that the
ground on which its motion to dismiss was granted was
improper. 12 U.S.C.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
St. Hillaire v. FDIC, (1st Cir. 1994).
St. Hillaire v. FDIC (St. Hillaire v. FDIC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Howard Greene v. Union Mutual Life Insurance Company of America
764 F.2d 19 (First Circuit, 1985)
Carl Kale v. Combined Insurance Company of America
924 F.2d 1161 (First Circuit, 1991)