Michael Kistler, et al v. FDIC

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellants Hutch Holdings, Inc. and Michael J. Kistler. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 13-11267

Date Filed: 09/26/2013

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11267
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:11-cv-00024-WTM-GRS
MICHAEL J. KISTLER,
HUTCH HOLDINGS, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION,
as Receiver for First National Bank,
Defendant-Appellee,
FIRST NATIONAL BANK,
Defendant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(September 26, 2013)
Before WILSON, HILL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

Case: 13-11267

Date Filed: 09/26/2013

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiffs, Michael J. Kistler and Hutch Holdings, Inc., appeal the grant of
summary judgment to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. as Receiver for First
National Bank on its claim as to the indebtedness owed it by the plaintiffs, as well
as on all claims alleged against it by plaintiffs. We have carefully reviewed the
record below and the detailed and thoughtful opinion of the district court and find
no reversible error. Therefore, we shall affirm the judgment.
The undisputed facts forming the basis for the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corp.’s (the “FDIC”) claim are these. In 2007, Michael J. Kistler obtained a line
of credit from First National Bank in the principal sum of $1,500,000.00. Kistler,
as president of Hutch Holdings, Inc., also entered into a commercial security
agreement with the bank. The agreement granted the bank a deed to secure debt
with real property, and an assignment of lease and rents. Kistler also executed an
absolute, unconditional, and continuing personal guaranty of a promissory note to
the bank from a corporation of which Kistler is a member and guarantor.
Sometime thereafter, the bank froze the line of credit but forced an advance on it to
fully satisfy Kistler’s personal guaranty. Kistler demanded a return of the line of
credit monies, but the bank refused.
2

Case: 13-11267

Date Filed: 09/26/2013

Page: 3 of 3

Litigation ensued in state court with Kistler asserting a variety of common
law tort as well as contract claims against the bank. The details of this litigation
are fully outlined in the district court’s opinion. During the litigation, however, the
FDIC was appointed as Receiver of the bank and the state court litigation was
removed to federal court whereupon the FDIC moved for summary judgment in its
favor as to Kistler’s indebtedness and against Kistler on his claims against the
bank.
In its detailed opinion, the district court granted summary judgment as to
plaintiffs’ undisputed indebtedness to the FDIC and entered judgment for the
FDIC. There is no error here. In addition, the court carefully reviewed each and
every one of Kistler’s common law and contract claims against the FDIC and
concluded that none of them were meritorious. Our review of the district court’s
application of the relevant law to these claims reveals no error in any of these
conclusions.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.

3