Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Harry Brown & Co., LLC, et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing as follows: (1) The Motion to Unseal Doc. # 59 (Doc. # 99 ) is GRANTED and the Clerk is DIRECTED to unseal Doc. # 59 and its attachments; (2) FDIC's Motion for Summary Judgment (# 65 ) is GRANTED in part, and judgment is entered as to FDIC and against the Defendants on the counterclaim (Count Nine) based on Bank Owned Life Insurance, and as to the amount of indebtedness as set by the state court, and is DENIED in all other respects; the case is also proceeding on the claim in Count III brought based on the Stewardship Investments, LLC loan, even though FDIC has conceded that the debt is no longer owned by FDIC (Doc. # 100 ); pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), Plaintiff is given until March 9, 2015 to show cause why the court ought not grant summary judgment to the Defendant as to this claim. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on March 2, 2015. (scn, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
HARRY BROWN & CO., LLC;
STEWARDSHIP INVESTMENTS, LLC;
HARRY I. BROWN, JR.; and JOHN M.
BROWN, as personal representative of the
ESTATE OF HARRY I. BROWN, SR.,
HARRY BROWN & CO., LLC;
STEWARDSHIP INVESTMENTS, LLC;
HARRY I. BROWN, JR.; and JOHN M.
BROWN, as personal representative of the
ESTATE OF HARRY I. BROWN, SR.,
THE FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
Civ. Action No. 2:13-cv-350-WHA
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the court on a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #65), filed by the
Plaintiff, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), and on a Motion to Unseal
Document #59 (Doc. #99) filed by the Defendants.1
This case began in Alabama state court as a suit by Frontier Bank against Harry I. Brown,
Jr. (“Brown, Jr.”); Harry Brown & Company, LLC (“Brown & Co.”); and Stewardship
Investments, LLC. The FDIC became the Receiver for Frontier Bank, and removed the state case
to federal court.
The Defendants in the removed case submitted counterclaims to FDIC administratively.
FDIC then filed an Amended Complaint, adding John M. Brown as personal representative of the
Estate of Harry I. Brown, Sr. (“Estate of Brown, Sr.”).
The claims in the Amended Complaint are a claim for breach of contract based on Note 1,
dated January 22, 2010 (967785) (“Note 1”) against Brown & Co.; Brown, Jr.; and the Estate of
Brown, Sr. (Count I); breach of contract based on Note 2, dated January 22, 2010 (967793) (“Note
2”) against Brown & Co.; Brown, Jr.; and the Estate of Brown, Sr. (Count II); breach of contract on
Note 3, dated December 19, 2005 (“Note 3”) against Stewardship Investments, LLC and Brown,
Jr. (Count III); ultra vires against the Brown, Sr. Estate (Count IV); lack of consideration against
the Brown, Sr. Estate (Count V); and conspiracy to breach fiduciary duty and to commit fraud
against the Brown, Sr. Estate, Brown, Jr.; and Brown & Co. (Count VI).
The Defendants Answered and Counterclaimed. The counterclaims include claims for
specific performance as to the release of Brown, Sr. (Count One); breach of contract based on the
release of Brown, Sr. (Count Two); breach of contract (Count Three); fraud (Count Four); lender
liability (Count Five), breach of commitment to lend (Count Six); breach of implied covenant of
1 The Defendants seek to unseal their Doc. #59 and the exhibits attached because FDIC has filed
Exhibit 59 as FDIC’s exhibit #65-1, not under seal. For good cause shown, the motion is due to
good faith and fair dealing (Count Seven); economic duress (Count Eight); and declaratory
judgment, Bank Owned Life Insurance (Count Nine) (Doc. #40).
Ruling on various motions, this court entered judgment as to FDIC on the counterclaims
of Harry Brown & Co., LLC; Stewardship Investments, LLC; and Harry I. Brown, Jr. in claims
Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, and Eight, and the affirmative defenses which relate to those
counterclaims. Remaining counterclaims in the case are Claim One for Specific Performance
based on the Release of Harry I. Brown, Sr., Claim Two for breach of contract based on the
Release of Harry I. Brown, Sr., and Claim Nine for a Declaratory Judgment as to Bank Owned
The Bank Owned Life Insurance (“BOLI”) counterclaim is based on a life
insurance policy on the life of Brown, Jr.
The court also ordered dismissed Counts IV and V of the Amended Complaint.
Also by previous Order of this court (Doc. #100), summary judgment was denied as to
FDIC on the Stewardship Investments, LLC and Brown, Jr. debt, Note 3, and as to various
For reasons to be discussed, the Motion for Summary Judgment is due to be GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part.
II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment is proper "if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322 (1986).
The party asking for summary judgment "always bears the initial responsibility of
informing the district court of the basis for its motion,@ relying on submissions Awhich it believes
demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Id. at 323. Once the moving party
has met its burden, the nonmoving party must Ago beyond the pleadings@ and show that there is a
genuine issue for trial. Id. at 324.
Both the party Aasserting that a fact cannot be,@ and a party asserting that a fact is genuinely
disputed, must support their assertions by Aciting to particular parts of materials in the record,@ or
by Ashowing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute,
or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.@ Fed. R. Civ. P.
56 (c)(1)(A),(B). Acceptable materials under Rule 56(c)(1)(A) include Adepositions, documents,
electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for
purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.@
To avoid summary judgment, the nonmoving party "must do more than show that there is
some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). On the other hand, the evidence of the nonmovant must be
believed and all justifiable inferences must be drawn in its favor. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
After the nonmoving party has responded to the motion for summary judgment, the court
shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
The submissions of the parties establish the following facts, construed in a light most
favorable to the non-movants:
The debts at issue, as previously identified, are Notes 1 and 2, which are debts of Brown &
Co.; Brown, Jr.; and the Brown, Sr. Estate, and Note 3, which is a debt of Stewardship
Investments, LLC and Brown, Jr.
Before the FDIC became a party and the case was removed to this court, the Circuit
Court of Coosa County, Alabama entered summary judgment in favor of Frontier Bank as
1. As of September 19, 2012, Stewardship Investments, LLC was indebted to Frontier
Bank in the amount of approximately $468,553.50, which is $445,947.71 in principal
and $22,595.79 in interest, and $10.00 in late fees plus a reasonable attorney’s fee.
Interest is accruing at $74.32 per day.
2. As of September 19, 2012, Harry Brown & Co., LLC was indebted to Frontier Bank
in the amount of $1,100,627.68, which is $1,056,220.14 in principal, $43,431.28 in
interest, and $976.26 in late charges, plus a reasonable attorney’s fee.
continues to accrue at the rate of $176.04 per day.
3. As of September 19, 2012, Harry I. Brown, Jr., as guarantor of the Brown & Co. and
Stewardship debts, was indebted to Frontier Bank in the amount of $1,569,181.18
plus a reasonable attorney’s fee.
Interest continues to accrue at the rate of $250.36
(Doc. #1-5 at p. 149). The court allowed Frontier Bank to file a supplemental motion
establishing the accrual of interest and the credit for foreclosure of a mortgage.
(Doc. #1-5 at p.
The Order was entered without prejudice to Brown, Jr.; Stewardship Investments; or
Brown & Co. asserting affirmative defenses and counterclaims to reduce or eliminate the
(Doc. #1-5 at p. 150).
The facts underlying these transactions are that Brown & Co. was a limited liability
company of Brown, Jr., who was also a director of Frontier Bank.
guaranteed by Brown, Jr.
Notes 1 and 2 were
When the loans were renewed, they were also guaranteed by Brown,
Sr., who was Brown, Jr.’s father. Brown, Sr.’s guaranty was limited to $600,000.
Townson (“Townson”), the CEO of Frontier Bank, later approved a release of Brown, Sr.’s
limited guaranty of the loans.
Brown, Jr. states in a Declaration that part of the consideration
for that release was that Brown, Jr. forfeited Bank Owned Life Insurance (“BOLI”).
William Logan (“Logan”), the Frontier Bank loan officer, released Brown, Sr.’s guaranty.
FDIC contends that Logan released the guaranty relying on Townson’s representation that the
Board of Directors of Frontier Bank had authorized the release.
Brown, Jr. has stated in a
Declaration that Townson was authorized to approve the release in his capacity as CEO of
Frontier Bank without Board approval.
The FDIC moves for summary judgment against Defendants Brown & Co.; Brown, Jr.; and
the Estate of Brown, Sr. in the amount of $450,360.08 plus interest.2 The FDIC moves for
summary judgment on its claims against Brown & Co. and Brown, Jr., arguing that all that is left in
the case against those Defendants is a damage calculation. With respect to the claims against the
Estate of Brown, Sr., FDIC moves for summary judgment on the grounds that it is due judgment on
the defenses and counterclaims as a matter of law. The court begins with the claims against
Brown, Jr. and Brown & Co.
A. Claims Against Brown, Jr. and Brown & Co.
2 As noted, FDIC also moved for summary judgment against Stewardship Investments, LLC and
Brown, Jr. in the amount of $527,489.26 plus interest. Summary judgment was denied to FDIC
by previous order on that claim. (Doc. #100).
The Defendants dispute that the amount owed on Notes 1, 2, and 3 has been determined.
They point to an affidavit of Brown, Jr. and state that the evidence controverts the actual amount of
the debt owed. If, as it appears, the Defendants are disputing the amount owed as determined by
the state court’s order on summary judgment in this case, an opposition brief to the FDIC’s Motion
for Summary Judgment is not the appropriate way in which to seek relief from that judgment.
The court, therefore, will not deny FDIC’s summary judgment motion on that basis.
The Defendants also point out that affirmative defenses which still are viable in this case
are the statute of limitations, lack of standing, collateral and payment, offset, release, and interest
only at the statutory rate. As earlier noted, summary judgment was denied as to these affirmative
defenses in a previous Order (Doc. #100). The court concludes, therefore, that judgment cannot
be entered as to the amount of the debt owed by Brown, Jr. and Brown & Co because the amounts
set by the state circuit court in its order, while still controlling in this case, are subject to these
affirmative defenses, since the state circuit court’s order was “without prejudice to [the assertion
of] affirmative defenses and counterclaims to reduce or eliminate the indebtedness.”3
In addition to affirmative defenses, the Defendants also assert a counterclaim based on
BOLI. The argument made by the Defendants based on this counterclaim is that the value of the
policies should be an offset against any indebtedness Brown, Jr. owes.
In moving for Summary Judgment, FDIC has argued that Brown, Jr. has no evidence of a
written agreement of Brown, Jr.’s forfeiture of his BOLI as consideration of the release of the
Brown, Sr. guaranty. FDIC states that any oral agreement to that effect would be barred by 12
U.S.C. §1823 and the D’Oench doctrine, that is, that side agreements to banking transactions
3 Because the parties have not briefed these affirmative defenses, or presented evidence as to
them, the court is unable to evaluate the effect, if any, that each such defense has on the amounts
cannot impair the interests of the FDIC. See Resolution Trust Corp. v Dunmar Corp., 43 F.3d 587
(11th Cir. 1995) (citing D’Oench, Duhme & Co. v. FDIC, 315 U.S. 447 (1942)).
FDIC points to a paragraph in Brown, Jr.’s Declaration in which he states that “based on
our verbal agreement at that time,” the accrued value of his BOLI benefit was reduced to zero.
(Doc. #87-1 at ¶5). In another Declaration filed in this case, Brown, Jr. similarly states that in a
“discussion” with Steven Townson, he agreed to forfeit his interests in his BOLI. (Doc. #65-1 at
p.3 ¶5). FDIC also points out that Brown, Jr. states in a Declaration that the BOLI benefit was
surrendered to secure a release of the Harry Brown, Sr. limited guaranty, and to give a death
benefit to his wife, but that the affidavit does not identify an agreement to reduce Brown, Jr.’s debt.
(Doc. #87-1 at ¶5).
In response, Defendants have referred to BOLI in their brief, but they have not pointed the
court to evidence of a written agreement regarding BOLI. Because under the D’Oench doctrine,
oral agreements cannot impair the interest of the FDIC, the court concludes that summary
judgment is due to be GRANTED as to FDIC as to the Counterclaim Nine claim based on BOLI.
B. Claims Against Brown, Sr. Estate
In a previous Memorandum Opinion and Order, this court concluded that to invalidate the
Release of Harry Brown, Sr., FDIC would have to prove fraud under Alabama law. (Doc. #78).
FDIC had contended that pursuant to 12 U.S.C. §1823(e)(1)(C), the release of the limited guaranty
by Brown, Sr. is prohibited because it was not approved of the Board of Directors of Frontier
Bank. FDIC also argued that there was no arms-length negotiation between Frontier Bank and
Brown, Sr., but instead there was fraud and collusion, so federal law renders such agreements
unenforceable as a matter of law unless reflected in the minutes of the Board. The court agreed
that §1823(e) could apply to the release of Brown, Sr.’s guaranty if the guaranty was not validly
released under state law and, therefore, the asset was still in existence at the time that FDIC took
over for Frontier Bank, applying the persuasive authority Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. McFarland,
33 F.3d 532 (5th Cir. 1994) (Doc. #78).
FDIC continues to maintain that fraud occurred, but now also states that McFarland does
not apply because it is undisputed that the release of Brown, Sr.’s guaranty was not a loan
document. This argument was not raised previously, even though the court gave FDIC additional
time in which to comment on the applicability of the McFarland case, and FDIC filed a brief in
response. (Doc. #73, #75).
The Defendants argue that this court ought not consider the new argument by FDIC, and
that the new argument is contrary to its position in this litigation. The Defendants also argue that
FDIC has not pointed to any evidence contrary to the Defendants’ evidence that the release of
Brown, Sr.’s limited guaranty was part of the loan documents. The Defendants have pointed to
Brown, Jr.’s Declaration in which he states that the written release of Brown, Sr. was produced to
him by FDIC as part of the business records of Frontier Bank. (Doc. #65-1 at p.5, ¶7). Brown,
Jr. also states that the Frontier Bank business records reflect that after Brown, Sr. was released
from his guaranty, the loans no longer show him as guarantor. (Doc. #65-1 at p.5, ¶8). The
Defendants also present copies of the releases of the $600,000 limited guaranty which refer to the
loans by number within the documents. (Doc. #98-1 at p.6, p.7).
Therefore, there is at least a
question of fact as to whether the releases were part of the loan documents so that McFarland
applies, and, therefore, summary judgment cannot be granted to FDIC on that basis, even if the
court were to reconsider its earlier determination.
Turning now to the fraud theory, fraud requires a showing of false representation of a
material fact, which is reasonably relied on and which causes damage as a proximate consequence
of the misrepresentation. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Alabama Dep’t of Conservation & Natural Res.,
986 So. 2d 1093, 1114 (Ala. 2007).
FDIC has pointed to an Affidavit by Logan, Frontier Loan Officer, in which he states that
he executed the release on behalf of Frontier Bank because Townson instructed him to do so and
informed him that he had polled the directors of the Bank and they each authorized the Release to
be signed. (Doc. #65-5). FDIC also presents the Declaration of Christopher Zodrow, Chairman
of the Board of Frontier Bank, in which he states the Frontier Board of Directors was never
requested to release and never released Brown, Sr.’s guaranty. (Doc. #46-2).
The Defendants respond, among other arguments, that FDIC cannot prove reasonable
reliance. The Defendants state that Townson had the authority to release the loan, so that any
statements he made to Logan to effectuate that release could not have changed the course of
Frontier Bank. The Defendants also state that a representation about Board approval was not
material, because Board approval was not required for the release.
In support of their arguments, the Defendants have pointed out that in his Declaration,
Townson states that he was within his authority as CEO of Frontier Bank to approve the release of
Brown, Sr. (Doc. #59-7). Brown, Jr. also states in his Declaration that Zodrow “wrongly suggests
that he and other Board members did not agree to the release” and that Zodrow knew of the release
when it was approved. (Doc. #65-1 at ¶11, 13).
Given the conflicting evidence on the Board’s approval, and given the lack of evidence
disputing affirmative evidence that Townson was acting within his authority to approve the release
even without Board approval, the court concludes that summary judgment must be denied as to
FDIC on the counterclaims of the Estate of Brown, Sr.
For the reasons discussed, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:
The Motion to Unseal Doc. #59 (Doc. #99) is GRANTED and the Clerk is
DIRECTED to unseal Doc. #59 and its attachments.
FDIC’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#65) is GRANTED in part, and judgment is
entered as to FDIC and against the Defendants on the counterclaim (Count Nine) based on Bank
Owned Life Insurance, and as to the amount of indebtedness as set by the state court, and is
DENIED in all other respects.
The case will proceed on FDIC’s claims in Counts I and II of the Amended Complaint on
Note 1 and Note 2 against Harry Brown & Co., LLC; Harry I. Brown, Jr., as guarantor of the
Brown & Co. debt; and the Estate of Harry Brown, Sr. as the guarantor of the debt, subject to the
affirmative defenses of the statute of limitations, lack of standing, collateral and payment, offset,
release, and interest only at the statutory rate, and subject to the counterclaims based on the
release of the Brown, Sr.’s guaranty, but not subject to an offset based on Bank Owned Life
Insurance. The case will also proceed on FDIC’s conspiracy to commit fraud and breach of
fiduciary duty claim in Count VI of the Amended Complaint.
The case is also proceeding on the claim in Count III brought based on the Stewardship
Investments, LLC loan, even though FDIC has conceded that the debt is no longer owned by
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f), Plaintiff is given until March 9, 2015 to
show cause why the court ought not grant summary judgment to the Defendant as to this claim.
Done this 2nd day of March, 2015.
/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?