Opinion · Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Southern Industrial Realty, Inc. v. William J. Noe

S. Indus. Realty, Inc. v. William J. Noe, 814 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1987)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1987-03-04
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. Since the FDIC has a complete defense to state and common law fraud claims on a note it acquired for value, in good faith, and without actual knowledge of fraud at the time of acquisition, Gunter v. Hutcheson, 674 F.2d 862 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 826, 103 S.Ct. 60, 74 L.Ed.2d 63 (1982); Gilman v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 660 F.2d 688 (6th Cir.1981), we affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons stated in the district court’s August 31, 1983 Opinion and Order and January 29, 1986, 628 F.Supp. 92, Memorandum Opinion and Order of Judgment.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Southern Industrial Realty, Inc. v. William J. Noe. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL REALTY, INC. v. NOE,814 F.2d 1(1st Cir. 1987)
SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL REALTY, INC., PLAINTIFF, APPELLANT, v. WILLIAM J. NOE,
ET AL., DEFENDANTS, APPELLEES.
No. 86-1490.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Submitted October 10, 1986.
Decided March 4, 1987.
Julio M. Rodriguez and Fiddler, Gonzalez Rodriguez, San Juan, P.R., on brief for plaintiff, appellant.

Stanley L. Feldstein, Feldstein, Gelpi, Hernandez Gotay, Old San Juan, P.R., Michael B. Burgee, Deputy General Counsel, Washington, D.C., Rae Schupack, Regional Counsel, New York City, and John David Ferrer, Sr. Atty., Santurce, P.R., on brief for appellee Federal Deposit Ins. Corp.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico.
Before COFFIN, BOWNES and BREYER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
[1] Since the FDIC has a complete defense to state and common law fraud claims on a note it acquired for value, in good faith, and without actual knowledge of fraud at the time of acquisition,Gunter v. Hutcheson,674 F.2d 862(11th Cir.),cert. denied,459 U.S. 826,103 S.Ct. 60,74 L.Ed.2d 63(1982);Gilman v.Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.,660 F.2d 688(6th Cir. 1981), we affirm the judgment of the district court for the reasons stated in the district court's August 31, 1983 Opinion and Order and January 29, 1986,628 F. Supp. 92, Memorandum Opinion and Order of Judgment.