Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, As Liquidator Forcentury Bank (movant), Appellant, v. Ludwig Family Trust, Debtor,andralph Mcdonald, Chapter 11 Trustee, Trustee-appellee, 8 F.3d 26 (9th Cir. 1993)
Annotate this CaseBefore: BROWNING, CHOY, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Whether the extension agreement releases FDIC's interest in the Happy Valley property is a question of federal law. See FDIC v. Zook Bros. Constr. Co., 973 F.2d 1448, 1450-51 (9th Cir. 1992). Because the extension agreement does not explicitly release the Happy Valley property, it cannot have that effect against FDIC. See id. at 1451. Under 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e), the absence of an explicit writing also bars reliance on the extension agreement to diminish FDIC's interest in the properties. See Zook, 973 F.2d at 1450-52; cf. FSLIC v. Gemini Management, 921 F.2d 241, 245 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1990) ("section 1823(e) was meant to offer as much protection as the common law rule in D'Oench "). Neither the innocent obligor exception nor the "no asset" defense to the D'Oench doctrine applies.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
CANBY, Circuit Judge, concurring:
I concur in the judgment on the strength of FDIC v. Zook Bros. Constr. Co., 973 F.2d 1448, 1451 (9th Cir. 1992), a case decided after the bankruptcy court's decision and only three days before the district judge signed his order of affirmance. Zook establishes a federal requirement of explicitness in documents of release that the extension agreement in this case does not meet. Id. at 1451.
I do not rely, however, on the doctrine of D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. FDIC, 315 U.S. 447 (1942), or on 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e), both of which are designed to protect the FDIC against secret side agreements that diminish or impair assets appearing in the records of an acquired bank. D'Oench, Duhme, 315 U.S. at 458; see Langley v. FDIC, 484 U.S. 86, 91-92 (1987). Neither D'Oench, Duhme nor section 1823(e) apply to this case, where the document relied on by the Trustee as a release was properly and promptly recorded in the files of the Bank. "If ... the records of a bank evidence all the obligations of the bank, the regulating authority will not be deceived. Thus, D'Oench, Duhme does not bar the assertion of defenses based on a bilateral obligation which appears in the bank's records." FSLIC v. Gemini Management, 921 F.2d 241, 245 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting FDIC v. Two Rivers Assoc., 880 F.2d 1267, 1275 (11th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added by Gemini) ).
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.
