Fraud In The Factum

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

• Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Thompson
  93 Fla. 30· Fla.· 1927-01-18 ·cited 103×
  Florida East Coast Railway Company appeals a judgment awarding damages to an injured railway employee, James Thompson, who alleged that a release signed by him was procured through fraud. The Supreme Court of Florida reversed the judgment, holding that Thompson's evidence of frau
• The City Nat'l Bank OF Fort Smith v. Ilo Vanderboom
  422 F.2d 221· 8th Cir.· 1970-02-20 ·cited 92×
  The court held that the investors lacked standing to bring a Rule 10b-5 counterclaim because they were not purchasers or sellers of securities, and the bank's actions did not fall within the statutory coverage of Section 10(b).
• Lummus Co. v. Commonwealth OIL Ref. Co., Inc.
  280 F.2d 915· 1st Cir.· 1960-06-16 ·cited 52×
  The court held that it would not consider new evidence on rehearing and denied the petition for rehearing, clarifying its prior decision regarding the scope of arbitration and the stay of proceedings.
• Kilpatrick v. Riddle
  907 F.2d 1523· 5th Cir.· 1990-07-25 ·cited 29×
  The D’Oench, Duhme doctrine bars borrowers from bringing actions against the FDIC as receiver based on fraud in the inducement, even if those actions are framed as federal securities law claims.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Kasal
  913 F.2d 487· 8th Cir.· 1990-08-31 ·cited 24×
  The FDIC is not bound by unrecorded agreements that diminish its interest in a bank asset, but a customer can prove actual payments or misappropriations against the FDIC.
• McLEMORE v. Landry
  898 F.2d 996· 5th Cir.· 1990-04-06 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the notice of appeal only conferred jurisdiction over the partnership, not the individual partners, and affirmed the summary judgment for FSLIC based on the D'Oench doctrine, rejecting the partnership's defenses.
• In re 604 Columbus Ave. Realty Tr. v. 604 Columbus Ave. Realty Tr.
  968 F.2d 1332· 1st Cir.· 1992-06-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the FDIC, as receiver, cannot raise federal defenses for the first time on appeal under FIRREA, and that the D'Oench doctrine does not bar all claims related to the kickback scheme.
• United States v. Feldman
  931 F.3d 1245· 11th Cir.· 2019-07-30 ·cited 19×
  Isaac Feldman invested in Miami Beach nightclubs that defrauded customers through various schemes, and after an initial conviction was reversed, he was retried and convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed his convictions and
• Cancanon v. Smith Barney
  805 F.2d 998· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-10 ·cited 16×
  Claims under § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 are not subject to arbitration, and allegations of fraud in the factum of an agreement render the arbitration clause invalid and not subject to arbitration.
• The Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. for Vernon Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Gordy
  928 F.2d 1558· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-25 ·cited 15×
  The D'Oench doctrine applies even when borrowers act in good faith and reasonably, barring defenses based on unrecorded agreements or conditions, including the truth of a bank's financial statements.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Va. Crossings P'ship
  909 F.2d 306· 8th Cir.· 1990-07-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Janikula and Jensen memoranda, the fraud defense, and the termination defense based on the Lund letter are all barred by 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e) because they do not meet the statute's requirements for agreements to be valid against the FDIC.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Turner
  869 F.2d 270· 6th Cir.· 1989-02-17 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge would hold that Turner's negligence in executing the guaranty in blank substantially contributed to its alteration, precluding his defense under Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-3-406.
• Castleglen, Inc. v. Resolution Tr. Corp. for Commonwealth Fed. Sav. Ass'n
  984 F.2d 1571· 10th Cir.· 1993-02-09 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the D'Oench doctrine and FIRREA's statutory counterpart, 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e), bar Castleglen's claims against the RTC, whether characterized as contract defenses or affirmative tort claims, because the alleged misrepresentations constituted fraud in the induce
• Leasing Serv. Corp. v. River City Constr., Inc.
  743 F.2d 871· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the assignee was a holder in due course, the sale of repossessed equipment was commercially reasonable, and the lease was not a conditional sale, but modified the damages award by striking the award for breach of the purchase option.
• Templin v. Weisgram
  867 F.2d 240· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the FDIC is protected by 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e) from a borrower's claim that a deed of trust is void under state law, when that claim relies on an undisclosed side agreement.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. The AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co.
  947 F.2d 196· 6th Cir.· 1991-10-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the agreement tending to diminish the FDIC's interest was part of the asset itself and met the statutory requirements.
• C.B.S. Emps. Fed. Credit Union v. Donaldson
  912 F.2d 1563· 6th Cir.· 1990-09-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that where a plaintiff alleges fraud in the procurement of an arbitration agreement itself, the federal court must adjudicate that claim, rather than deferring to arbitration.
• Batka v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co.
  704 F.2d 684· 3d Cir.· 1983-04-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that the insurer only needed to prove its fraud defense by a preponderance of the evidence, when New Jersey law requires clear and convincing evidence for rescission of an insurance policy.
• Heckenkamp v. Kennedy
  267 F.2d 887· 8th Cir.· 1959-06-24 ·cited 6×
  A release signed by a plaintiff, even if based on alleged misrepresentations by an insurance agent, is binding if the plaintiff had the capacity and opportunity to read it and no confidential relationship or fraudulent artifice prevented them from doing so.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Plato
  981 F.2d 852· 5th Cir.· 1993-01-28 ·cited 4×
  The D'Oench, Duhme doctrine and its statutory analogue, 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e), apply to prevent borrowers from asserting defenses based on unwritten agreements or alterations that mislead federal bank examiners, even if the alterations were made by the bank itself.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Kratz
  898 F.2d 669· 8th Cir.· 1990-03-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), in its corporate capacity, is entitled to enforce a personal guaranty against a debtor, even when the debtor raises the defense of fraudulent inducement, due to the protections afforded by 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e).
• Miller v. Long
  152 F.2d 196· 4th Cir.· 1945-12-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a claim of fraud in procuring a mortgage and FHA loan, even if involving false statements to the FHA, does not present a federal question if the relief sought depends on state law and not the construction of federal statutes.
• Shai Morali v. Mayan
  377 So. 3d 1182· Fla. 4th DCA· 2024-01-24 ·cited 2×
  A written contract may be enforced despite the absence of a party's signature if other facts or circumstances establish mutuality or assent, such as performance under the contract. At the motion to dismiss stage, when the complaint alleges performance consistent with the disputed
• Conlen v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin. Bd.
  104 So. 3d 1208· Fla. 2d DCA· 2012-12-14 ·cited 2×
  Appellants in two consolidated foreclosure cases challenged the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the National Credit Union Administration Board (NCUA) as liquidating agent for a failed credit union. The court affirmed the judgments, holding that the D'Oench doc
• Lindsey v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  960 F.2d 567· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-15 ·cited 2×
  Ownership of a peanut allotment passes with the foreclosure of the entire parcel of land upon which the allotment is in effect, and an oral reservation of ownership is insufficient without the bank's agreement.
• R.M. Perez & Assocs., Inc. v. Welch
  960 F.2d 534· 5th Cir.· 1992-05-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that seven of eight plaintiffs were compelled to arbitration, affirmed the arbitrators' award, but reversed the district court's reduction of attorneys' fees awarded for the district court proceedings.
• Patterson v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  918 F.2d 540· 5th Cir.· 1990-12-06 ·cited 1×
  12 U.S.C. § 1823(e) does not preclude a borrower from asserting homestead rights under Texas law, even if the deed of trust contains a disclaimer, as long as the claim is not based on a separate agreement intended to deceive the FDIC. The denial of a directed verdict on the comme
• Persaud v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-22
  The court held that the complaint must be stricken for failing to comply with federal and local rules, including being unsigned and failing to number paragraphs, and for being a shotgun pleading.
• Nipro Corp. v. Verner
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-12-21
  The court held that Nipro's claims against Verner were not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel, and thus the motion to dismiss was denied.
• Anderson v. Greenhouse Solar & Air, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-12-12
  The court held that arbitration agreements are valid and enforceable, and that claims arising from the contracts are subject to arbitration, while shotgun pleadings warrant dismissal.
• Landcastle Acquisition Corp. v. Renasant Bank
  57 F.4th 1203· 11th Cir.· 2023-01-12
  Landcastle Acquisition Corp. sued Renasant Bank to recover funds from a certificate of deposit pledged as collateral for a loan, arguing that the law firm's manager lacked authority to pledge the asset on behalf of the firm. The Eleventh Circuit held that under the D'Oench doctri
• Price v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-04-26
  A pro se homeowner's amended complaint alleging fraud, breach of contract, RICO violations, and other claims against a mortgage loan servicer was dismissed with prejudice because the underlying legal theories—including reliance on the discredited "vapor money" doctrine that a sel
• Oce N. Am., Inc. v. Caputo
  416 F. Supp. 2d 1321· S.D. Fla.· 2006-02-10
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and therefore denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
• Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. BHRS, LLC
  333 F. Supp. 2d 1293· S.D. Fla.· 2004-04-06
  The court held that a claim of fraudulent inducement to enter a contract containing an arbitration clause is for the arbitrator to decide, not the court.
• Stan Baumann v. Savers Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc. & Resolution Tr. Corp.
  934 F.2d 1504· 11th Cir.· 1991-07-09
  The Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) can raise the D'Oench doctrine for the first time on appeal, even though it was not raised in the trial court, because the RTC had no opportunity to do so as it was not a party at that stage.
• Kelly v. Azar
  568 So. 2d 97· Fla. 3d DCA· 1990-10-16
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying a motion to stay pending arbitration without an evidentiary hearing when the making of the arbitration agreement itself was challenged.
• TED Price Constr. Co. v. Cascade Natural GAS Corp.
  307 F.2d 741· 9th Cir.· 1962-09-11
  A party seeking to set aside a release for fraud or duress under Washington law is not required to tender back the consideration paid for the release before commencing suit.