Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 92-5177.
T.A. GRANT, III, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
FARM CREDIT BANK OF TEXAS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Dec. 3, 1993.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, JOLLY, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
E. GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge:
In 1983, Thomas A. Grant III, Suzanne Paxton, and James Steele, III (hereafter referred to
collectively as "Grant") purchased approximately 37,000 acres of land in Morehouse, Ouachita, and
Union Parishes, Louisiana, for about $36,000,000. Grant borrowed approximately half of the
purchase price from the Federal Land Bank of Jackson ("FLBJ"). In exchange, Grant gave FLBJ a
mortgage on 15,000 acres to secure the debt. After a few years, Grant fell behind in mortgage
payments. To avoid foreclosure, Grant filed a lawsuit in 1986 against FLBJ and others in which
Grant asserted various lender liability claims.
In May of 1988, the Farm Credit Administration appointed REW Enterprises ("REW") as the
receiver for the FLBJ. In the summer of 1990, the district court granted REW summary judgment
for the amounts due on the loans and recognized the mortgage. REW then conveyed its interest in
the notes and the collateral to the Farm Credit Bank of Texas ("FCBT"). Shortly thereafter, FCBT
seized the mortgaged property, selling the property at a public auction in which FCBT purchased the
land for $14,000,000. In March 1992, FCBT notified Grant that it intended to sell the property and
that Grant had a right of first refusal. In response, Grant offered to settle FCBT's claims against him
by purchasing the property for $16,900,000, however, FCBT rejected this offer. Grant then filed this
lawsuit in Louisiana State Court against FCBT, REW, the law firm of Milling, Benson, Woodward,
Hillyer, Pierson, & Miller ("Milling Benson"), Wesley Slay, and Herbert Haynes, seeking damages

and a declaration of his rights to the property. The defendants removed the proceeding to federal
court, where REW, Milling Benson, Slay and Haynes moved the court to dismiss the proceeding for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(6). Meanwhile,
the remaining defendant, FCBT, moved for summary judgment. The district court granted both
motions and entered a final judgment against Grant.
On appeal, Grant contends that the Farm Credit Act of 1971 and its amendment, the
Agricultural Credit Act of 1987, provides a private cause of action. We, however, elect to follow the
other circuits that have already determined this issue, and hold that the Farm Credit Act does not
confer a private cause of action. See Saltzman v. Farm Credit Services, 950 F.2d 466 (7th Cir.1991);
Zajac v. Federal Land Bank, 909 F.2d 1181 (8th Cir.1990) (en banc); Griffin v. Federal Land Bank,
902 F.2d 22 (10th Cir.1990); Harper v. Federal Land Bank, 878 F.2d 1172 (9th Cir.1989); see also
Redd v. Federal Land Bank, 851 F.2d 219 (8th Cir.1988); Bowling v. Block, 785 F.2d 556 (6th
Cir.1986); Smith v. Russellville Production Credit Assn, 777 F.2d 1544 (11th Cir.1985).
Grant also contends that the district court erred when it found that Grant did not state a claim
under state tort law. After study of the briefs, argument of counsel, and review of the relevant parts
of the record, we are convinced that the trial court committed no reversible error. The district court's
judgment is therefore
AFFIRMED.