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.
Client’s small business obtained an SBA 7(a) loan for $150,000. He and his wife signed personal guarantees and pledged their home as collateral. The SBA loan went into default, the term or maturity date was accelerated and demand for payment of the entire amount claimed was made. The SBA lender’s note gave it the right to adjust the default interest rate from 7.25% to 18% per annum. The business filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy but was dismissed after 3 years due to its inability to continue with payments under the plan. Clients wanted to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which would have been a mistake as their home had significant equity to repay the SBA loan balance in full as the Trustee would likely seize and sell the home to repay the secured and unsecured creditors. However, the SBA lender opted to pursue the SBA 7(a) Guaranty and subsequently assigned the loan and the right to enforce collection to the SBA. Clients then received the SBA Official 60-Day Notice and hired the Firm to respond to it and negotiate on their behalf. Clients disputed the SBA’s alleged balance of $148,000, as several payments made to the SBA lender during the Chapter 11 reorganization were not accounted for. To challenge the SBA’s claimed debt balance, the Firm Attorneys initiated expedited discovery to obtain government records. SBA records disclosed the true amount owed was about $97,000. Moreover, because the Clients’ home had significant equity, they were not eligible for an Offer in Compromise or an immediate Release of Lien for Consideration, despite being incorrectly advised by non-attorney consulting companies that they were. Instead, our Firm Attorneys recommended a Workout of $97,000 spread over a lengthy term and a waiver of the applicable interest rate making the monthly payment affordable. After back and forth negotiations, SBA approved the Workout proposal, thereby saving the home from imminent foreclosure and reducing the Clients' liability by nearly $81,000 in incorrect principal balance, accrued interest, and statutory collection fees.
Small business sole proprietor obtained an SBA COVID-EIDL loan for $500,000. Client defaulted causing SBA to charge-off the loan, accelerate the balance and refer the debt to Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Service for aggressive collection. Treasury added $180,000 in collection fees totaling $680,000+. Client tried to negotiate with Treasury but was only offered a 3-year or 10-year repayment plan. Client hired the Firm to represent before the SBA, Treasury and a Private Collection Agency. After securing government records through discovery and reviewing them, we filed an Appeals Petition with the SBA Office of Hearings & Appeals (OHA) court challenging the SBA's referral of the debt to Treasury citing a host of purported violations. The Firm was able to negotiate a reinstatement and recall of the loan back to the SBA, participation in the Hardship Accommodation Plan, termination of Treasury's enforced collection and removal of the statutory collection fees.
Client personally guaranteed an SBA 7(a) loan for $100,000 from the lender. The SBA loan went into early default in 2006 less than 12 months from disbursement. The SBA paid the 7(a) guaranty monies to the lender and subsequently acquired the deficiency balance of about $96,000, including the right to collect against the guarantor. However, the SBA sent the Official 60-Day Due Process Notice to the Client's defunct business address instead of his personal residence, which he never received. As a result, the debt was transferred to Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Service where substantial collection fees were assessed, including accrued interest per the promissory note. Treasury eventually referred the debt to a Private Collection Agency (PCA) - Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. Pioneer sent a demand letter claiming a debt balance of almost $310,000 - a shocking 223% increase from the original loan amount assigned to the SBA. Client's social security disability benefits were seized through the Treasury Offset Program (TOP). Client hired the Firm to represent him as the debt continued to snowball despite seizure of his social security benefits and federal tax refunds as the involuntary payments were first applied to Treasury's collection fees, then to accrued interest with minimal allocation to the SBA principal balance.
We initially submitted a Cross-Servicing Dispute (CSD) challenging the referral of the debt to Treasury based on the defective notice sent to the defunct business address. Despite overwhelming evidence proving a violation of the Client's Due Process rights, the SBA still rejected the CSD. As a result, an Appeals Petition was filed with the SBA Office of Hearings & Appeals (OHA) Court challenging the SBA decision and its certification the debt was legally enforceable in the amount claimed. After several months of litigation before the SBA OHA Court, our Firm Attorney successfully negotiated an Offer in Compromise (OIC) Term Workout with the SBA Supervising Trial Attorney for $82,000 spread over a term of 74 months at a significantly reduced interest rate saving the Client an estimated $241,000 in Treasury collection fees, accrued interest (contract interest rate and Current Value of Funds Rate (CVFR)), and the PCA contingency fee.
.jpg)
