Federal Holder In Due Course Doctrine

12 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Porras v. Petroplex Sav. Ass'n
  903 F.2d 379· 5th Cir.· 1990-06-14 ·cited 30×
  The D'Oench, Duhme doctrine, which protects the FSLIC from unwritten side agreements diminishing the value of facially valid instruments, extends protection to a subsequent private purchaser of assets from the FSLIC.
• Sunbelt Savings v. Montross
  923 F.2d 353· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-28 ·cited 20×
  The federal holder in due course doctrine does not apply to non-negotiable instruments, and summary judgment was premature on the defendant's prevention of performance claim due to insufficient discovery.
• Tex. Refrigeration Supply, Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  953 F.2d 975· 5th Cir.· 1992-02-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine does not bar claims for wrongful acceleration and commercially unreasonable disposition of collateral, as these arise from implied obligations of the loan agreement, not secret oral agreements. However, other claims based on oral pr
• M.E. Lassiter and Donna Marie Lassiter v. Resolution Tr. Corp.
  610 So. 2d 531· Fla. 5th DCA· 1992-12-04 ·cited 12×
  The Lassiters appealed a summary judgment foreclosing their mortgage held by the Resolution Trust Corporation, arguing their affirmative defenses of fraud, failure of consideration, and setoff were improperly barred. The court reversed, holding that the D'Oench doctrine and 12 U.
• Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. MacKie
  962 F.2d 1144· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court had removal and pendent party jurisdiction, and that only the fraud claim was clearly barred by the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine.
• Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. MacKie
  949 F.2d 818· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-06 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the federal district court had removal and pendent party jurisdiction, and that Mackie's defenses to the promissory note were barred by the federal holder in due course doctrine.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Payne
  973 F.2d 403· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-25 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine bars Payne's fraudulent inducement defense, but the federal holder in due course doctrine does not apply to non-negotiable guaranties, allowing Payne to assert defenses regarding notice of collateral sale and commercial reasonablene
• Resolution Tr. Corp. for Sw. Fed. Sav. Ass'n v. Sharif-Munir-Davidson Dev. Corp.
  992 F.2d 1398· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a district court's grant of summary judgment without specific notice that it contemplated ruling on the motion was not an abuse of discretion, as local rules provided sufficient notice.
• Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. v. Kralj
  968 F.2d 500· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-17 ·cited 2×
  Statements in pleadings and interrogatories do not constitute a usurious demand for interest, and a promissory note with a savings clause is not usurious on its face, even if it contains a provision for calculating interest on a 360-day year.
• First Republicbank Fort Worth v. Norglass, Inc.
  958 F.2d 117· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a two-year delay in filing a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, without a valid justification, is not a "reasonable time" and constitutes an abuse of discretion to deny.
• Resolution Tr. Corp. v. Jet Stream, Ltd.
  790 F. Supp. 1130· M.D. Fla.· 1992-04-08 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the defendants' counterclaims and affirmative defenses based on an alleged oral joint venture agreement were barred by the D'Oench doctrine and the federal holder in due course doctrine, as these agreements were not reflected in the bank's official records.
• NCNB Tex. Nat'l Bank v. King
  964 F.2d 1468· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-10
  The court held that the borrower's Bank Tying Act claim, based on alleged oral agreements with a failed bank, was barred by the D'Oench, Duhme doctrine when asserted against the FDIC's assignee.