February 3, 2023

Volume XIII, Number 34

Advertisement

February 02, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 01, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 31, 2023

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

North Carolina Supreme Court Reminds Court of Appeals That Typical Lender-Borrower Relationship is Not a Fiduciary One

The North Carolina Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that a run-of-the-mill lender and borrower are not fiduciaries, reversing the Court of Appeals decision that would have this issue to go to the jury.  The case is Dallaire v. Bank of America.

The Dallaires sought a home refinance loan from Bank of America (BOA).  They claimed that a loan officer with Bank of America (BOA) repeatedly assured Mr. Dallaire that a prior bankruptcy and a mortgage on their home with BB&T “would not be a problem” and that the BOA loan would be secured by a first lien mortgage against the home.

Dallaire v. Bank of AmericaThe Dallaires brought suit against BOA, alleging negligent title search, negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all claims.  The Dallaires appealed, arguing that the traditional arm’s length view of borrower-lender relationships was out of step with the modern loan origination process in which lenders have control and borrowers place their complete trust in them.  The Dallaires further claimed that Bank of America did not use reasonable care in representing the lien’s first priority status.

The Court of Appeals found that there was a question of fact “as to whether or not the circumstances of the parties’ interaction prior to signing the loan give rise to a fiduciary relationship and consequently created a fiduciary duty for Defendant.”  Dallaire v. Bank of Am., ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 738 S.E.2d 731, 735 (2012).  The Court reasoned that BOA’s alleged assurance of a first priority lien on the Dallaires’ new mortgage loan was an act beyond the scope of a normal debtor-creditor relationship. Id. at ___ n.5, 738 S.E.2d at 735 n.5.  The Court of Appeals also remanded the Dallaires’ negligent misrepresentation claim “to determine, if a duty existed, whether Defendant negligently misrepresented the priority the loan would receive.” Id. at ___, 738 S.E.2d at 736.

The Supreme Court reversed, explaining that fiduciary relationships are those characterized by “confidence reposed on one side, and resulting domination and influence on the other,” such as those shared between spouses, attorney-client, trustee-beneficiary, and partners in a partnership. The Court further noted that “the law does not typically impose upon lenders a duty to put borrowers’ interests ahead of their own. Rather, borrowers and lenders are generally bound only by the terms of their contract and the Uniform Commercial Code.”

While noting “it is possible, at least theoretically, for a particular bank customer transaction to “give rise to a fiduciary relation given the proper circumstances,” the Supreme Court found that a loan officer’s mere assertion that the Dallaires could obtain a first priority lien mortgage loan was insufficient to transform the relationship from arm’s length to fiduciary.

The Court likewise concluded that the Dallaires’ negligent misrepresentation claim failed even assuming BOA owed them a duty.  Noting that even though “determining the effects of a previous bankruptcy on a home’s liens is complicated,” the Court found that the Dallaires produced no evidence that they made any reasonable inquiry into the loan officer’s alleged negligent misstatements of lien priority, or were prevented from doing so by the bank, and thus there was no justifiable reliance.

Business litigators frequently encounter claims for breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, and constructive fraud (which rests on the existence of a fiduciary duty) in which plaintiffs urge the courts to find such a duty based on some act by a borrower or business that creates special confidence and trust in a transaction.  Dallaire confirms that such attempts are likely to fail barring some extraordinary circumstances.  Although plaintiffs will undoubtedly continue to assert that their particular circumstances usurp the nature of arms-length transactions, for the time being lender are on solid ground for defeating any claims that depend on a fiduciary relationship or rest on the lender having some sort of superior knowledge that the borrower could have also had upon a reasonable investigation.

Copyright © 2023 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume IV, Number 199
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Womble Carlyle is at the forefront of the Association of Corporate Counsel’s Value Challenge, which seeks to better align legal services with the needs of corporate clients. So we understand how to help businesses control costs and mitigate risks in complex litigation.

More than 70 attorneys, many of them veteran litigators with decades of courtroom experience, give clients the bench strength and knowledge to solve large, complex business litigation challenges and achieve the agreed-upon business outcome. We also counsel clients to identify...

704-331-4980
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement