JACK P. MCGEE, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF BRUNSWICK, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A parent corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary cannot conspire for purposes of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and an appraisal is not a distinct product from a loan for tying arrangement purposes.
Plaintiff, a real estate appraiser, sued a savings and loan association alleging antitrust violations. The association referred loan appraisals to its…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Copperweld Corp. V. Independence Tube Corp. cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff, Jack P. McGee, a real estate appraiser in Brunswick, Georgia, appeals the dismissal of his antitrust claim that defendant, First Federal Savings & Loan Association of Brunswick, violated antitrust laws by setting up an arrangement whereby First Federal would refer the appraisal required for real estate loans to a wholly owned subsidiary. Alleging the procedure constituted an illegal tying arrangement, plaintiff claimed conspiracy in restraint of trade (15 U.S.C.A. § 1), an attempted monopolization (15 U.S.C.A. § 2), an illegal tying agreement (12 U.S.C.A. § 1972), and a RICO violation (18 U.S.C.A. § 1962). For the reasons set out in the district court’s opinion, we affirm.
Aside from the facts, two legal principles were central to the grant of summary judgment. First, in light of Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 2731, 81 L.Ed.2d 628 (1984), a parent corporation and its subsidiary are incapable of engaging in the concerted activity required for a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act, even though a separate corporation is required for independent appraisal purposes.
Second, to support a claim of an illegal tying arrangement, the law requires a showing of two distinct products: a tying product, in the market for which defendant has economic power, and a tied product, which defendant forces on consumers wishing to purchase the tying product. Jefferson Parish Hospital District No. 2 v. Hyde, — U.S. -, -, 104 S.Ct. 1551, 1565, 80 L.Ed.2d 2, 21 (1984). There are not two distinct products involved in the alleged situation. An appraisal is performed for the benefit of the lending institution. It is the “consumer” of the appraisal product. There is no legitimate consumer demand by a borrower to purchase loan-related appraisal services separate from the purchase of the loan itself. Federal regulation requires the lending institution to commission the appraisal. See 12 C.F.R. § 545.32(b)(1) (1984). The appraisal’s cost is simply passed on to the borrower as a business cost. See 24 C.F.R. § 3500.7. Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the pre-loan appraisal is provided to the borrower as a product separate from the loan itself.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dibidale OF La., Inc. v. Am. Bank & Tr. Co., 916 F.2d 300 (5th Cir. 1990)…enied, 476 U.S. 1159, 106 S.Ct. 2279, 90 L.Ed.2d 721 (1986); Parsons Steel, Inc. v. First Alabama Bank, N.A., 679 F. 2d 242 (11th Cir.1982); Costner v. Blount Nat’l Bank, 578 F. 2d 1192 (6th Cir.1978); but see McGee v. First Fed’l Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 761 F. 2d 647 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 905, 106 S.Ct. 273, 88 L.Ed.2d 234 (1985) (applying the Sherman Act Jefferson Parish standard). The fact that Congress, in enacting the anti-tying provisions of the BHCA, sought to regulate a specific industry ou…
Authorities Cited
- Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752 (U.S. 1984)
- Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. NO. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2 (U.S. 1984)