David M. Meyer & Nancy R. Meyer Trust v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, No. 14-1560 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseIn 2003, the Meyers signed a revolving credit note and agreement and later signed term notes and loan agreements with U.S. Bank, to finance their swine production business. In 2006, the Meyers transferred all their business assets to a revocable trust, naming themselves as grantors and trustees. The revolving credit loan went into default in 2008. U.S. Bank agreed not to exercise its default rights. The lending relationship continued until the Meyers withheld proceeds from the sale of collateral (hogs). U.S. Bank filed suit; the Meyers sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2010. In 2011 the Meyers, individually, sued U.S. Bank, alleging breach of contract, fraud, violations of the Nebraska Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal. The Trust then commenced another suit, alleging that U.S. Bank tortiously interfered with the Trust’s contractual relations with a feed supplier. The district court granted summary judgment and imposed a $5,000 sanction against the Trust and its attorneys. The Trust appealed. U.S. Bank sought additional sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, arguing that appeal was frivolous. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the rulings, held that appeal was not frivolous but was frivolously argued, and granted double costs as a Rule 38 sanction.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Smith, Circuit Judge] Civil case - Torts. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see Meyer v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 715 F.3d 703 (8th Cir. 2013). In this action alleging tortious interference with the plaintiff's contractual relations with a feed supplier, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment based on matters outside the pleadings where all parties were given a change to present material pertinent to the motion; the district court did not err in imposing Rule 11 sanctions against plaintiffs where they repackaged the prior suit under a different cause of action and made claims regarding the trust's status as plaintiff which were contradicted by their contentions in the prior case and the evidence in the record; the trust's appeal of the sanctions order was not frivolous; however, by arguing that the district court erred in granting a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal when the district court clearly granted summary judgment in the case, and by misrepresenting governing law in their reply brief, plaintiffs had frivolously argued the appeal, and defendant is entitled to double appeals costs as a sanction.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.