Collections: Bank Denied Lawyer Fees Due to Problem in the Guaranty

    In the case of Jefferson National Bank v. Estate of Frogale, a Loudoun County Circuit Court Judge denied the award of attorney's fees to a bank because the guaranty agreement did not have a provision for attorney's fees even though the promissory note clearly provided for 25% attorney's fees. The Loudoun Court found that the guaranty referred only to collection of "charges or costs" upon default. The Court ruled that this language was ambiguous, and as such, construed the ambiguity against the bank because they drafted the documents. 

     In Frogale a corporation defaulted in the payment of a note and the bank sued the note's guarantor. The guarantor filed a motion for summary judgment regarding the question of the guarantor's liability for attorney's fees. The Loudoun Court reviewed the Virginia Supreme Court case of Mahoney v. Nationsbank. In Mahoney the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that a note and guaranty are two separate agreements, but each must be construed in the light of the other. In doing so, the Loudoun Court stated that it was "crucial that the bank chose to distinguish in the Note between 'all other applicable fees, costs and charges' and attorney's fees; and that it chose not to place a specific attorney fee obligation in the guaranty." The Loudoun Court pointed out that the bank could have placed an attorney's fee provision in the guaranty just as it had done in the note. 

     The lesson of Frogale is that you should be careful that when you have guaranties you ensure that the language in the guaranty "mirrors" the language in the promissory note - without mirror language, there can be a problem, with mirror language, ambiguity should not be an issue.

Collections: Bank Denied Lawyer Fees Due to Problem in the Guaranty

     In the case of Jefferson National Bank v. Estate of Frogale, a Loudoun County Circuit Court Judge denied the award of attorney's fees to a bank because the guaranty agreement did not have a provision for attorney's fees even though the promissory note clearly provided for 25% attorney's fees. The Loudoun Court found that the guaranty referred only to collection of "charges or costs" upon default. The Court ruled that this language was ambiguous, and as such, construed the ambiguity against the bank because they drafted the documents. 

     In Frogale a corporation defaulted in the payment of a note and the bank sued the note's guarantor. The guarantor filed a motion for summary judgment regarding the question of the guarantor's liability for attorney's fees. The Loudoun Court reviewed the Virginia Supreme Court case of Mahoney v. Nationsbank. In Mahoney the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that a note and guaranty are two separate agreements, but each must be construed in the light of the other. In doing so, the Loudoun Court stated that it was "crucial that the bank chose to distinguish in the Note between 'all other applicable fees, costs and charges' and attorney's fees; and that it chose not to place a specific attorney fee obligation in the guaranty." The Loudoun Court pointed out that the bank could have placed an attorney's fee provision in the guaranty just as it had done in the note. 

     The lesson of Frogale is that you should be careful that when you have guaranties you ensure that the language in the guaranty "mirrors" the language in the promissory note - without mirror language, there can be a problem, with mirror language, ambiguity should not be an issue. 

Collection: Child Support Exemption for Garnishment

     In the case of General Electric Capital Auto Lease, Inc. v. Turner, the City of Richmond Circuit Court denied a debtor's exemption to garnishment claim.

     In Turner the debtor claimed an exemption based on the amount of monthly child support the debtor owed. The Court noted that the specific exemption claimed by the debtor on the garnishment form was the exemption created by Virginia Code §55-165. The judgment creditor argued that this code section only applied to assignments of wages executed and approved by a judge under the procedure specifically set out in Virginia Code §55-161 through 167. That procedure included notice to and consent of the debtor's creditors, the appointment of a trustee, and so on. The Court found as fact that none of those things were done in this case. Therefore, the Court ruled that an exemption under Virginia Code §55-165 did not apply. The Court also considered all the other exemptions from garnishment listed in Virginia Code §8.01-512.4, and none of those exemptions applied either. Accordingly, the debtor's claim of exemption was denied.

Collection: Bank Denied Lawyer Fees Due to Problem in the Guaranty

     In the case of Jefferson National Bank v. Estate of Frogale, a Loudoun County Circuit Court Judge denied the award of attorney's fees to a bank because the guaranty agreement did not have a provision for attorney's fees even though the promissory note clearly provided for 25% attorney's fees. The Loudoun Court found that the guaranty referred only to collection of "charges or costs" upon default. The Court ruled that this language was ambiguous, and as such, construed the ambiguity against the bank because they drafted the documents.

     In Frogale a corporation defaulted in the payment of a note and the bank sued the note's guarantor. The guarantor filed a motion for summary judgment regarding the question of the guarantor's liability for attorney's fees. The Loudoun Court reviewed the Virginia Supreme Court case of Mahoney v. Nationsbank. In Mahoney the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that a note and guaranty are two separate agreements, but each must be construed in the light of the other. In doing so, the Loudoun Court stated that it was "crucial that the bank chose to distinguish in the Note between 'all other applicable fees, costs and charges' and attorney's fees; and that it chose not to place a specific attorney fee obligation in the guaranty." The Loudoun Court pointed out that the bank could have placed an attorney's fee provision in the guaranty just as it had done in the note.
     The lesson of Frogale is that you should be careful that when you have guaranties you ensure that the language in the guaranty "mirrors" the language in the promissory note - without mirror language, there can be a problem, with mirror language, ambiguity should not be an issue.

Bankruptcy: Dischargeability of Debt - False Financial Statement in Chapter 7 Case

     Judge Tice, United States Bankruptcy Court in Richmond, denied discharge of a debt in a Chapter 7 case. The case was Global Express Money Orders, Inc. v. Davis. In Davis, the debtor previously had a convenience store that sold the creditor’s money orders through the store. The debtor still owed the creditor ($71,168.55) for some of these money orders. At issue was the debtor’s financial statement provided to the creditor at the commencement of the business between them. 

     The Court found that the debtor’s financial statement was materially false. In fact, at trial the debtor did not seriously question the inaccuracy of the statement. Rather, he tried to distance himself from its preparation and delivery to the creditor. In the financial statement the debtor provided false information as to cash in a checking account, the value of his personal residence and a beach condominium, the value of his equity in certain investments, value of mutual funds and an expected federal tax refund.
     The Court further found that the creditor required the personal financial statement of debtors as a condition precedent of the business arrangement; that the debtor, with intent to deceive, published the materially false financial statement and caused it to be delivered to the creditor; and that in contracting with the creditor and allowing the entity to incur substantial indebtedness, the creditor reasonably relied upon materially false asset entries in the financial statement, which debt was indemnified by the debtor personally.
     The Court rejected the debtor’s argument that the creditor failed to prove that he prepared the financial statement and authorized its delivery, i.e., publication with intent to deceive, to the creditor. The Court determined that the evidence showed that in the debtor’s presence and with his knowledge, the financial statement was delivered to the creditor by an (unknown) employee of the debtor’s business. The Court ruled that this evidence was sufficient to require some better explanation from the debtor than he provided. The Court stated that it did not believe the debtor’s evasive testimony that he was too busy to be bothered, and knew nothing about the contents of the financial statement or the circumstances surrounding its delivery to the creditor. The Court determined that at the very least, the debtor recklessly allowed his financial statement to be used by the creditor for its consideration of the business transaction, and his reckless indifference was sufficient to satisfy the publication with intent to deceive element of Bankruptcy Code §523(a)(2)(B).
     As to damages, the debtor argued that the loss of payment of the trust balance due was not damage or loss resulting from his publication of the false financial statement, as required by the statute. Rather, the debtor stated that the loss resulted from the failure of store employees to separate money order sales. Moreover, according to the debtor, his stores were not generating enough revenue to pay the current liabilities, and there was no evidence that he personally took funds or caused the shortage. However, the Court found it ironic that the debtor could argue that it was his employees who failed to comply with the trust agreement requirement for segregating trust fund receipts of the creditor. The debtor agreed to indemnify the creditor for his business’s indebtedness under the trust agreement, and his inability to make good on the indemnity was a direct result of his financial problems and ensuing bankruptcy. Although the Court stated that causation was not a necessary or proper element of the false financial statement issue, the Court simply found that the debtor’s false financial statement was a proximate cause of the loss.

Collections: Equal Opportunity Credit Act

     In a past blog, I announced that we would begin a multi-issue review of the Equal Opportunity Credit Act, 15 U.S.C. §1691 ("the ECOA" or "the Act").
     The ECOA was enacted in 1974 to prohibit discrimination by lenders on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, marital status, age, religion and welfare status. The statute was originally aimed at discrimination against married women who were often denied credit unless they could get their husband's signatures. The statute, in many respects, has been taken to many illogical extremes.
     Lenders who violate the statute can be sued for actual damages, punitive damages up to $10,000, and costs and attorney's fees. Punitive damages can be awarded even if there are no actual damages, and even if the lender did not have a specific intention to discriminate. In practice, this means that the Act could be used in a counterclaim, not just a defense. In regard to a counterclaim, there is a two year statute of limitations for suits under the Act, which will usually have passed by the time a legal action by the creditor has begun. Most courts have ruled that the two year statute of limitations does not apply when the Act is raised as a defense.
     There are many potential issues that have been raised under the Act; listed below are those which have been cited most frequently.
     1. Requiring the signature of a spouse. Under federal regulations, "[A] creditor shall not require the signature of an applicant's spouse ... on any credit instrument if the applicant qualifies under the creditor's standards of creditworthiness for the amount and terms of the credit requested."(12 C.F.R. §202.7(d)(1).). There have been many cases litigated regarding this. The Virginia Supreme Court found that a bank violated the Act when a husband sought a loan for his construction company and the bank required his wife's signature as a guarantor, even though the husband was individually creditworthy, the wife had no interest in the company and was not a joint applicant, and the bank made no inquiry into her credit standing. The Court made these factual findings, but the company, ultimately, did not have assets to cover the debt. When the husband's construction company defaulted on the loan, after the husband died, the bank sought recovery from the wife and the husband's estate. When the Court found that this violated the Act, it ruled that there could be no recovery against the wife, as "Contracts executed in violation of law cannot be enforced....To deny [the wife] the right to use the ECOA violation defensively would be to enforce conduct that is forbidden by the Act." Debtor's attorneys are using this defense in foreclosure proceedings to prevent summary judgment on the foreclosure, stall for time, release a spouse from liability, and force the lender to defend against a complex and expensive federal claim.
     2. Asking for information about a spouse or former spouse, unless the applicant is relying on the spouse's income or lives in a community property state (Virginia is not - it is a Common Law state).
     3. Asking for sources of an applicant's income without saying that the applicant does not have to mention alimony or child support unless he or she wants the lender to consider it when it decides whether to extend credit.
     4. Taking race, sex or national origin into account when making a credit decision (although a bank can consider immigration status).
     5. Using statistics to judge the reliability of income from alimony, child support, pensions or welfare. Even if child support payments are statistically unreliable, a bank must consider whether the individual applicant has consistently received payments in the past.
     6. Ascribing a negative value to an applicant's age unless it relates to a "pertinent element of creditworthiness," such as the length of time the applicant has until retirement or the adequacy of security where a mortgage term exceeds the applicant's life expectancy.
     We will continue our review of the Act in future blogs.