Tennessee Bank & Trust v. Lowery et al

Filing 79

MEMORANDUM signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 3/30/2012. (hb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
TENNESSEE BANK & TRUST, a wholly
owned division of FARMERS BANK &
TRUST COMPANY, an Arkansas state bank,

)

Plaintiff,

v.
MARION EDWIN LOWERY, CYNTHIA
LOWERY, MARIAN ELIZABETH LOWERY
SAFFLE, JOHN HARRISON LOWERY,
WILLIAM HARRISON CRABTREE, JR., JIM
ENGLAND, RICHARD INMAN, TOMMY
CROCKER, BBC HOLDINGS, INC.,
BOC OPERATIONS, LLC, PBLF, LLC,
COMMERCE BANCSHARES, INC.,
PEOPLES STATE BANK OF COMMERCE and
OAKLAND FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:11-cv-0984
Judge Trauger

MEMORANDUM
Pending before the court is the Motion of BBC Holdings, Inc. to Dismiss Cross-Claim
Asserted by Cross-Plaintiffs, Commerce Bancshares, Inc., Peoples State Bank of Commerce and
BOC Operations, LLC. (Docket No. 49), to which the cross-plaintiffs have responded (Docket
No. 57). For the reasons discussed herein, the motion to dismiss will be granted.
BACKGROUND
The cross-plaintiffs, Commerce Bancshares, Inc. (“Commerce Bank”), Peoples State
Bank of Commerce (“Peoples State Bank”), and BOC Operations, LLC (“BOC”), are a group of
entities named as defendants in an action (“the Farmers Action”) brought by the plaintiff,

1

Tennessee Bank & Trust1 (“Farmers”).2 Commerce Bank is the sole shareholder and parent
company of Peoples State Bank. Likewise, Peoples State Bank is the sole shareholder and parent
of BOC, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company.
The cross-defendants, BBC Holdings, Inc. (“BBC”), PBLF, LLC (“PBLF”), Marion
Edwin Lowery (“Lowery”), Marian Elizabeth Lowery Saffle (“Saffle”), and William Harrison
Crabtree, Jr. (“Crabtree”), are also named as defendants in the Farmers action. BBC is a
Tennessee corporation that specializes in purchasing distressed assets from banks at a discount
and pooling such assets together. It also engages in lending activities. Lowery is alleged to be
one of BBC’s directors,3 while Crabtree is the corporation’s president. PBLF is a Tennessee
limited liability company. It is alleged to be a shell company, formed to acquire commercial and
residential properties. Saffle is Lowery’s daughter, and both individuals are alleged to be
members of PBLF.4

1

Unless otherwise noted, the allegations are drawn from the plaintiff’s Complaint
(Docket No. 1), the exhibits attached thereto, and the Answer, Counter-Complaint and CrossClaim of Commerce Bank, Peoples State Bank, and BOC (Docket No. 44). The court may
consider exhibits attached to the Complaint in ruling on the pending motion to dismiss. See
Barany-Snyder v. Weiner, 539 F.3d 327, 332 (6th Cir. 2008) (noting that “matters of public
record, orders, items appearing in the record of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint”
may be considered when reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Moreover, neither BBC nor the cross-plaintiffs have raised any objections to the
exhibits attached to the plaintiff’s Complaint.
2

The plaintiff is alleged to be a wholly-owned division of Farmers Bank & Trust
Company, an Arkansas bank.
3

The following individuals are also alleged to be directors of BBC: Jim England, Richard
Inman, and Tommy Crocker. (Docket No. 1 at 7.) All of these individuals are named as
defendants in the Farmers action.
4

In addition, Lowery’s wife (Cynthia Lowery) and son (John Harrison Lowery) are
alleged to be members of PBLF. (Docket No. 1 at 2-3.) Both Cynthia Lowery and John
Harrison Lowery are named as defendants in the Farmers action.
2

At the heart of the various claims asserted in this litigation is certain real property located
in Williamson County, Tennessee. On December 31, 2009, BBC loaned PBLF $7.8 million
pursuant to the terms of a Promissory Note signed by both parties. Lowery is alleged to have
personally guaranteed PBLF’s payment of the Note. For its part, PBLF granted BBC various
mortgages on real properties it owned, including the property at the center of this litigation (“the
Real Property”). This property contains an office building and had been previously conveyed to
PBLF by Lowery. It is alleged that the property represents a substantial portion of the security
for the Note.
On the same date that it loaned funds to PBLF, BBC also entered into a Participation
Agreement with Farmers. Pursuant to that agreement, Farmers purchased a 54% participation
interest in BBC’s loan to PBLF. Under the agreement’s terms, BBC was required, among other
things, to consult Farmers and obtain its written consent before agreeing to release any of the
collateral offered as security for its loan to PBLF.
Soon after the Promissory Note and Participation Agreement were signed, Lowery, the
personal guarantor of the Note, saw his financial condition deteriorate. It is alleged that
Lowery’s financial position was negatively impacted by the financial difficulties experienced by
Oakland Financial Services, Inc., an entity that he controlled.5 Sometime during the early portion
of 2010, BBC approached Farmers and sought permission to release the Real Property as
collateral for the PBLF loan, so that it could be transferred to another entity. Farmers denied
BBC’s request.

5

Oakland Financial Services, Inc. is also named as a defendant in the Farmers action.
3

Despite its failure to obtain Farmers’ written consent, BBC, through its president and
directors, released the Real Property from the mortgage on May 20, 2010. Just over one week
later, on May 28, 2010, PBLF conveyed the Real Property to BOC through a Warranty Deed,
which contained, among other things, a warranty of title. Saffle signed the Warranty Deed on
behalf of PBLF. Following this conveyance, PBLF defaulted on the Promissory Note, and BBC
defaulted on its required payments to Farmers pursuant to the terms of the Participation
Agreement.
Farmers subsequently filed this lawsuit on October 17, 2011. In its Complaint, Farmers
alleges, among other things, that the release and conveyance of the Real Property were fraudulent
and unlawful acts taken in furtherance of a scheme between all of the named defendants to
protect Lowery’s assets from the lawful claims of his and his entities’ creditors. It further alleges
that all of the entities named as defendants in this litigation were either alter egos or
instrumentalities of Lowery. Farmers has asserted claims for breach of contract, civil conspiracy,
fraud, fraudulent transfer, constructive trust, and conversion.
On December 16, 2011, Commerce Bank, Peoples State Bank, and BOC filed an Answer,
Counter-Complaint and Cross-Claim. (Docket No. 44.) In their Answer, the cross-plaintiffs have
denied that they were the alter egos or instrumentalities of Lowery. They also asserted a counterclaim against Farmers, alleging that BOC is a bona fide purchaser of the Real Property, as it
purchased the property from PBLF in an arms length transaction6 for $1.9 million,7 lacked record
6

The cross-plaintiffs allege that Lowery did not participate in any voting on behalf of
Commerce Bank, Peoples State Bank, or BOC on matters concerning the purchase of the Real
Property. (Docket No. 44, at 11.)
7

According to the allegations contained in the Counter-Claim, Peoples State Bank
transferred the $1.9 million to BOC, its wholly-owned subsidiary, for the purpose of purchasing
4

notice of any interest held by Farmers, and was unaware of the terms and conditions contained in
the Participation Agreement. In the Counter-Claim, the cross-plaintiffs seek a declaratory
judgment that BOC owns the Real Property free and clear of any claims held by Farmers.
The Cross-Claim that is the subject of the present motion alleges that PBLF did not have
clear and marketable title to the Real Property at the time that it was conveyed on May 28, 2010.
In addition, it alleges that the cross-defendants, BBC, PBLF, Lowery, Crabtree, and Saffle, were
all aware that BBC’s release of the Real Property as collateral for the PBLF loan violated the
terms of the Participation Agreement. It further alleges that, despite having a duty to disclose this
fact, the cross-defendants failed to inform the cross-plaintiffs of the existence of the Participation
Agreement, let alone the fact that the release violated its terms. As a result, Peoples State Bank,
in transferring $1.9 million in funds to BOC, and BOC, in tendering those funds to PBLF to
purchase the Real Property, relied, to their detriment, on the release and the Warranty Deed.
Moreover, the cross-plaintiffs allege that Peoples State Bank and BOC justifiably relied on
unspecified misrepresentations made by the cross-defendants in the release and Warranty Deed.
They seek damages for these alleged acts and omissions.8
The cross-plaintiffs also assert that, to the extent that Farmers is able to recover against
them, they are entitled to indemnification from the cross-defendants under the terms of the
Warranty Deed. In addition, they allege that PBLF and Saffle breached the warranty of title that
was granted to BOC, and that BOC has been damaged as a result of the breach, as it has been

the Real Property. (Docket No. 44, at 10.)
8

The Cross-Claim does not expressly list separate causes of action based on the alleged
acts and omissions of the cross-defendants.
5

required to defend its title to the Real Property. BBC filed the present motion on January 6,
2012.
ANALYSIS
BBC has moved to dismiss the cross-claims asserted against it on the ground that they fail
to state claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Alternatively, it argues that, even if the cross-plaintiffs have sufficiently pled claims for
relief against BBC, the court should still dismiss the cross-claims asserted by Commerce Bank
and Peoples State Bank because they lack standing.

I.

Motion to Dismiss
A.

Standard of Review

In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), the court
will “construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept its allegations as
true, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487
F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007); Inge v. Rock Fin. Corp., 281 F.3d 613, 619 (6th Cir. 2002). The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a plaintiff provide “‘a short and plain statement of
the claim’ that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds
upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)
(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). The court must determine whether “the claimant is entitled to
offer evidence to support the claims,” not whether the plaintiff can ultimately prove the facts
alleged. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002)
(quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974)).

6

The complaint’s allegations, however, “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167
L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). To establish the “facial plausibility” required to “unlock the doors of
discovery,” the plaintiff cannot rely on “legal conclusions” or “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action,” but, instead, the plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).
B.

BBC’s Motion

BBC contends that the allegations asserted against it in the Cross-Claim fail to state a
claim for relief. First, BBC argues that the Cross-Claim’s allegation that it had a duty to disclose
that it lacked the authority to release the Real Property as collateral for the PBLF loan cannot
state a claim for relief, because the Cross-Claim does not identify to whom it owed this alleged
duty and fails to otherwise allege that any relationship existed between itself and the crossplaintiffs from which such a duty could arise. Next, BBC contends that the cross-plaintiffs
cannot bring an indemnity claim against it under the Warranty Deed, because it never held title to
the Real Property at issue. Finally, BBC argues that the allegation that it made unspecified
misrepresentations cannot state a claim for relief, because the Cross-Claim does not identify the
misrepresentations it allegedly made.
In their response, the cross-plaintiffs expressly conceded BBC’s motion to dismiss as it
pertained to Commerce Bank. Accordingly, all cross-claims asserted by Commerce Bank against
BBC shall be dismissed. The remaining cross-plaintiffs, Peoples State Bank and BOC, expressly
conceded that they could not recover from BBC on any claims brought under the Warranty Deed.

7

Thus, their claim against BBC for indemnity shall also be dismissed. Peoples State Bank and
BOC have otherwise failed to directly address BBC’s arguments as to the remaining allegations
concerning its alleged misrepresentations and failure to disclose.9
Having reviewed the Cross-Claim, it appears that the allegations relating to BBC’s
misrepresentations and failure to disclose sound in fraud. However, it is unclear whether the
cross-plaintiffs intended to bring separate causes of action for the alleged misrepresentations on
the one hand, and the alleged failure to disclose on the other or if, instead, they intended to assert
a single cause of action claiming that the failure to disclose itself constituted the
misrepresentation. For the purposes of this motion, the court will assume that the cross-plaintiffs
have intended to assert two separate causes of action.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), when “alleging fraud or mistake, a party
must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent,
knowledge, and other conditions of a person’s mind may be alleged generally.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
9(b). The purpose of this rule “is to alert defendants as to the particulars of their alleged
misconduct so that they may respond[,] . . . to prevent fishing expeditions, to protect defendants’
reputations from allegations of fraud, and to narrow potentially wide-ranging discovery to
relevant matters.” Chesbrough v. VPA, P.C., 655 F.3d 461, 466-67 (6th Cir. 2011) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). To satisfy Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement, “the
plaintiff must allege (1) the time, place, and content of the alleged misrepresentation, (2) the

9

Rather, Peoples State Bank and BOC simply restated that BBC knowingly breached its
duty to disclose that it lacked the authority to release the Real Property as collateral for the PBLF
loan, and that Peoples State Bank and BOC relied on the release to their detriment.
8

fraudulent scheme, (3) the defendant’s fraudulent intent, and (4) the resulting injury.” Id. at 467.
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Applying these considerations here, the court finds that the allegations in the Cross-Claim
fail to satisfy Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirements. While the Cross-Claim alleges that BBC
made misrepresentations in the release and Warranty Deed that were signed in May 2010 and
upon which Peoples State Bank and BOC justifiably relied, it fails to specify what those
misrepresentations were. In addition, the Cross-Claim does not set forth that the alleged
misrepresentations were part of a scheme to defraud Peoples State Bank and BOC. Nor does it
allege that BBC possessed fraudulent intent in making the alleged misrepresentations.
As to BBC’s alleged failure to disclose, the Cross-Claim alleges the content of the
omission, namely, that BBC’s release of the Real Property as collateral for the PBLF loan
violated the Participation Agreement. In addition, it alleges a fraudulent scheme and BBC’s
fraudulent intent. Indeed, it asserts that, while BBC knew that its release of the Real Property
violated the Participation Agreement, it nonetheless breached its duty to disclose that fact. The
Cross-Claim also alleges the resulting injury, as it asserts that Peoples State Bank and BOC relied
upon the release and the Warranty Deed in entering into the transaction to purchase the Real
Property from PBLF for $1.9 million. However, the Cross-Claim does not allege when BBC
should have disclosed the omitted fact. Nor does it specifically allege the place where the
omitted fact should have been disclosed. Finally, as BBC notes, the Cross-Claim does not
identify to whom BBC owed a duty to disclose and fails to otherwise set forth the existence of
any relationship between BBC, on the one hand, and Peoples State Bank and BOC, on the other,
which would create any such duty.

9

Because the Cross-Claim fails to plead fraud with particularity pursuant to Rule 9(b), the
court will grant BBC’s motion to dismiss these particular claims. However, this dismissal will be
without prejudice. In their opposition brief, Peoples State Bank and BOC have sought leave to
amend the Cross-Claim, and the court finds that good cause exists to grant such leave to allow the
cross-plaintiffs to bring the Cross-Claim into compliance with Rule 9(b).10 Accordingly, the
cross-plaintiffs shall file an Amended Cross-Claim within 20 days of the date of the
accompanying Order remedying the pleading deficiencies identified by the court in the previous
paragraphs.
The cross-plaintiffs have also alleged that the other cross-defendants, like BBC, made
certain unspecified misrepresentations and breached a duty to disclose that BBC lacked the
authority to release the Real Property. In filing their Amended Cross-Claim, the cross-plaintiffs
should make specific and separate allegations against each of the cross-defendants as to each of
these fraudulent acts. See 2 James WM. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice, § 9.03[1][f] (3d
Ed. 2012) (stating that where a fraud “claim involves multiple defending parties, a claimant
usually may not group all claimed wrongdoers together in a single set of allegations[,] . . . [but
must instead] make specific and separate allegations against each defendant”). In doing so, the
cross-plaintiffs should also remedy the pleading deficiencies identified herein.

10

In the course of arguing against BBC’s motion to dismiss, Peoples State Bank and
BOC asserted that BBC “is a necessary party to the declaratory judgment action regarding the
rights of the parties to the property,” since it possessed a lien to the Real Property that it
improperly released. (Docket No. 57 at 3.) However, the declaratory judgment action does not
name BBC as a party. Indeed, the cross-plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment stating that BOC
owns the Real Property free and clear of any claims held by Farmers. To the extent that the
cross-plaintiffs allege that BBC should also be a party to the declaratory judgment action, they
shall amend the Cross-Claim accordingly.
10

II.

Standing
BBC also argues that, if the court finds that the cross-plaintiffs have sufficiently pled

claims for relief, it should nonetheless dismiss the cross-claims brought against it by Peoples
State Bank, because Peoples State Bank lacks standing to assert those claims.11 However,
because the court has granted BBC’s motion to dismiss, it need not consider this argument, as it
is moot. Once the cross-plaintiffs have filed their Amended Cross-Claim, BBC may again raise

this issue in a motion to dismiss.
CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons discussed herein, the Motion of BBC Holdings, Inc. to Dismiss
Cross-Claim Asserted by Cross-Plaintiffs, Commerce Bancshares, Inc., Peoples State Bank of
Commerce and BOC Operations, LLC (Docket No. 49) will be GRANTED.

An appropriate order will enter.
_______________________________
ALETA A. TRAUGER
United States District Judge

11

BBC also argues that Commerce Bank lacks standing to bring any claims against it.
However, as previously noted, Commerce Bank has already conceded BBC’s motion to dismiss.
11