.jpeg)
Who Qualifies for an SBA Loan Deferment
Learn who qualifies for an SBA loan deferment as well as when. Your frequently asked questions answered in one handy guide.
The transcript of the video follows below for further review.
The case of Rister v. Yadkin Bank arose out of a United States Small Business Administration ("SBA") loan that Defendant Yadkin Bank ("the Bank") made in 2011 to a corporate borrower, Mystique Makeover, LLC, a salon in Charlotte, North Carolina, operated by Maria L. Rex. Rister attempted to represent himself in the litigation. In July 2011, Plaintiff Timothy Rister and Ms. Rex signed a Commitment Letter with the Bank, acknowledging that they each intended to be guarantors on the loan for a maximum principal amount of $100,000. In September 2011, Rister signed an SBA Unconditional Guarantee (SBA Form 148) with respect to the loan, agreeing unconditionally to pay the lender all amounts owed under the loan. In 2014, Ms. Rex ceased her business operations due to disability, the corporate borrower defaulted on the loan, and Ms. Rex filed for bankruptcy. Following the borrower's default, the Bank's North Carolina counsel, Ellis & Winters LLP, sent a demand letter to Rister dated May 2, 2014, informing him that as a result of the default, the principal balance, all accrued but unpaid interest, and all other amounts owing under the loan were immediately due and payable in full. In September 2014, Rister commenced the present action, filing a Complaint against the Bank containing seventeen counts, following which the Bank filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in its entirety.
Rister asserted claims of "negligence/mistake/deception/bad faith" concerning a "commitment fee." Rister alleged that the Commitment Letter failed to sufficiently define the "packaging fee" and "SBA fee". He alleged that the terms "packaging fee" and "SBA fee" are "ambiguous and vague," and that the Commitment Letter failed to provide a "detailed breakout as to what these fees were." He also alleges that, by virtue of the Commitment Letter and the Unconditional Guarantee, the Bank "owed a duty of good faith and fair dealing" to him, "created a confidential relationship" with him, and had "a fiduciary duty to disclose details of [the] 'packaging fee' and 'SBA Fee'" to him because he and the Bank "were in a commitment letter contract and a 'contract of guaranty'". In addition, Rister alleged that the Bank's failure to sufficiently define the SBA and packaging fees caused a "unilateral mistake" on his part, such that "any contract is unenforceable or voidable by the plaintiff."
The Court noted that courts have refused to find a general duty of care between a lender and a guarantor. Likewise, Rister's allegations that the Bank failed to provide a detailed breakout of the fees do not state a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which occurs when "a party unreasonably exercises discretion authorized in a contract."
With respect to Rister's claim of unilateral mistake, the Court noted that one of the "basic elements required for a court to find a unilateral mistake" is that the mistake "must be to a 'basic assumption' or the essence of the contract." The Court stated that the Amended Complaint did not plausibly allege that Rister made a mistake as to a basic assumption of an agreement. Indeed, as the Bank points out, the nature of Rister's alleged mistake is unclear from the Complaint. Moreover, the fees listed in the loan are only a small fraction of the amount of the loan, and so it is difficult to imagine how any mistake concerning those fees could be basic to the transaction. The second element of a unilateral mistake is that "the party alleging the mistake must not bear the risk of the mistake by being aware, at the time the contract is made, that the party has 'limited knowledge' of the facts to which the mistake relates and treating this limited knowledge as sufficient." The allegations in the Complaint failed to meet this element because Rister was or should have been aware at the time he signed the Commitment Letter that the Letter did not include a "detailed breakout" of the fees. Finally, even if Rister could establish the elements of a unilateral mistake, "courts do not grant relief when the mistake is unilateral, instead of mutual, and is not due to the fault of the other party." The Court ruled that Rister had not plausibly alleged that he made a unilateral mistake due to the fault of the Bank.
In sum, the allegations in Rister's Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
If you are facing a SBA loan default contact one of our SBA lawyers for a consultation regarding your SBA debt and whether you can submit an SBA offer in compromise.
Millions of Dollars in SBA Debts Resolved via Offer in Compromise and Negotiated Repayment Agreements without our Clients filing for Bankruptcy or Facing Home Foreclosure
Millions of Dollars in Treasury Debts Defended Against via AWG Hearings, Treasury Offset Program Resolution, Cross-servicing Disputes, Private Collection Agency Representation, Compromise Offers and Negotiated Repayment Agreements
Our Attorneys are Authorized by the Agency Practice Act to Represent Federal Debtors Nationwide before the SBA, The SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals, the Treasury Department, and the Bureau of Fiscal Service.
Clients' 7(a) loan was referred to Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Service for enforced collection in 2015. They not only personally guaranteed the loan, but also pledged their primary residence as additional collateral. One of the clients filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy thinking that it would discharge the SBA 7(a) lien encumbering their home. They later discovered that they were mistakenly advised. The Firm was subsequently hired to review their case and defend against a series of collection actions. Eventually, we were able to negotiate a structured workout for $180,000 directly with the SBA, saving them approximately $250,000 (by reducing the default interest rate and removing Treasury's substantial collection fees) and from possible foreclosure.
Clients obtained an SBA 7(a) loan for $324,000 to buy a small business and its facility. The business and real estate had an appraisal value of $318,000 at the time of purchase. The business ultimately failed but the participating lender abandoned the business equipment and real estate collateral even though it had valid security liens. As a result, the lender recouped nearly nothing from the pledged collateral, leaving the business owners liable for the deficiency balance. The SBA paid the lender the 7(a) guaranty money and was assigned ownership of the debt, including the right to collect. However, the clients never received the SBA Official 60-Day Notice and were denied the opportunity to negotiate an Offer in Compromise (OIC) or a Workout directly with the SBA before being transferred to Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Service, which added an additional $80,000 in collection fees. Treasury garnished and offset the clients' wages, federal salary and social security benefits. When the clients tried to negotiate with Treasury by themselves, they were offered an unaffordable repayment plan which would have caused severe financial hardship. Clients subsequently hired the Firm to litigate an Appeals Petition before the SBA Office & Hearings Appeals (OHA) challenging the legal enforceability and amount of the debt. The Firm successfully negotiated a term OIC that was approved by the SBA Office of General Counsel, saving the clients approximately $205,000.
Client personally guaranteed an SBA 7(a) loan to help with a relative’s new business venture. After the business failed, Treasury was able to secure a recurring Treasury Offset Program (TOP) levy against his monthly Social Security Benefits based on the claim that he owed over $1.2 million dollars. We initially submitted a Cross-Servicing Dispute, but then, prepared and filed an Appeals Petition with the SBA Office of Hearings and Appeals (SBA OHA). As a result of our efforts, we were able to convince the SBA to not only terminate the claimed debt of $1.2 million dollars against our client (without him having to file bankruptcy) but also refund the past recurring amounts that were offset from his Social Security Benefits in connection with the TOP levy.
.jpg)
