Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Nichols, [Ms. 1130631, Apr. 24, 2015] __ So.3d __ (Ala. 2015). The Supreme Court
reverses an $11 million judgment entered by the Baldwin Circuit Court
after a non-jury trial concerning claims that officers of Colonial Bank
and its successor, BB&T, failed to provide renewal financing for a
real estate development project. Engaging in a
de novo review of the questions of law presented by the appeal,
R&G, LLC v. RCH IV-WB, LLC, 122 So.3d 1253, 1256 (Ala. 2013) ("We review questions of law
de novo"), the Court concluded that Alabama's Statute of Frauds, ¤
8-9-2, Ala. Code 1975, precluded recovery for breach of contract claims
because there were no written documents memorializing the alleged promises
to carry the interest on the loan or to lend the real estate developer
additional money to fund development of the real property. While the developer
presented some communications with officers of the bank, they were insufficient
to meet the requirements of the Statute of Frauds as set forth in
DeFriece v. McCorquodale, 998 So.2d 465, 471 (Ala. 2008) ("Although a writing relied on to
satisfy the statute of frauds need not be a complete contract, it must
contain the essential terms of the alleged contract, 'namely, an offer
and an acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent to the essential terms
of the agreement.'"). Because the contract claims were barred
by the Statute of Frauds, the developer's tort claims for fraud, misrepresentation,
and negligence in failing to fund the loans were also barred.
Holman v. Childersburg Bancorp., Inc., 852 So.2d 691, 699 (Ala. 2002) ("Where ... an element of a tort
claim turns on the existence of an alleged agreement that cannot, consistent
with the Statute of Frauds, be proved to support a breach-of-contract
claim, the Statute of Frauds also bars proof of that agreement to support
the tort claim."). The Court also rejected the argument that recovery
was required under principles of equitable or promissory estoppel because
"promissory estoppel [cannot] be used to enforce an oral agreement
that [is] void under the Statute of Frauds."
Durham v. Harbin, 530 So.2d 208, 213 (Ala. 1988). Finally, the Court reviewed the evidence
supporting the counterclaim for the balance owed on the original loan
and directed the Baldwin Circuit Court to enter judgment in favor of the
lender on its counterclaim.
Related Documents: branch_banking_42815