Bank of America v. JB Hanna, et al., No. 12-3239 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThe Bank filed suit against the Hanna Parties for breach of contract after the Hanna Parties failed to pay the balance due on a loan when it matured. The Hanna Parties counterclaimed, alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, deceptive trade practices, and breach of contract by the Bank, and demanding reformation or rescission. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Bank as to the counterclaims. A jury concluded that the Hanna Parties did not breach the contract and the district court denied the Bank's post-verdict motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. Both parties appealed. The court concluded that the case was properly submitted to a jury, and the Bank is precluded from seeking a judgment as a matter of law, but that the jury's verdict was against the great weight of the evidence, so the court reversed and remanded for a new trial on the Bank's breach-of-contract claims. The court agreed with the district court that the Hanna Parties' counterclaims failed as a matter of law and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Bank as to those claims.
Court Description: Civil case - Contracts. Defendant did not waive its right to a jury trial with respect to a 2005 loan agreement, and the district court did not err in submitting the matter to the jury; the plaintiff failed to file a preverdict motion pursuant to Rule 50(a), and the district court properly denied the defendant's Rule 50(b) motion; however, the district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiff's Rule 59 motion for a new trial as the verdict in favor of defendant on plaintiff's claim that defendant breached the loan agreements was against the great weight of the evidence, which showed the contracts were valid and enforceable, that the defendants breached their obligations and that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the breach; on defendants' cross-appeal, the district court did not err in granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on defendant's counter-claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, deceptive trade practices, negligence because the statute of limitations barred the claims; nor did the court err in granting plaintiff summary judgment on defendant's counterclaims for breach of contract or reformation; the case is remanded for a new trial on plaintiff's breach of contract claim; defendants' attorney's fees award vacated based on the vacation of defendant's judgment on the breach of contract claim.
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.