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 obtained an SBA 7(a) loan for their small business in the amount of $298,000. They pledged their primary residence and personal guarantees as direct collateral for the loan. The business failed, the lender was paid the 7(a) guaranty money and the debt was assigned to the SBA. Clients received the Official 60-Day Notice giving them a couple of options to resolve the debt balance directly with the SBA before referral to Treasury's Bureau of Fiscal Service. The risk of referral to Treasury would add nearly $95,000 to the SBA principal loan balance. With the default interest rate at 7.5%, the amount of money to pay toward interest was projected at $198,600. Clients hired the Firm with only 4 days left to respond to the 60-Day due process notice. Because the clients were not eligible for an Offer in Compromise (OIC) due to the significant equity in their home and the SBA lien encumbering it, the Firm Attorneys proposed a Structured Workout to resolve the SBA debt. After back and forth negotiations, the SBA Loan Specialist assigned to the case approved the Workout terms which prevented potential foreclosure of their home, but also saved the clients approximately $294,000 over the agreed-upon Workout term with a waiver of all contractual and statutory administrative fees, collection costs, penalties, and interest.
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.
Clients personally guaranteed SBA 504 loan balance of $750,000. Clients also pledged the business’s equipment/inventory and their home as additional collateral. Clients had agreed to a voluntary sale of their home to pay down the balance. We intervened and rejected the proposed home sale. Instead, we negotiated an acceptable term repayment agreement and release of lien on the home.
.jpg)
