Doyle v. Resolution Trust Corporation
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
999 F.2d 469 (1993)
Michael Doyle (plaintiff) borrowed $54,000 from Trinity Savings and Loan Association (Trinity) (defendant) to purchase a home in Oklahoma. Doyle signed an adjustable-rate note with an annual interest rate of 11.375 percent. Trinity later altered the note to reflect an interest rate of 15.875 percent and forged Doyle’s initials next to the alteration. Later that year, Trinity sold Doyle’s note and mortgage to Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) (defendant). FNMA purchased the note as part of a package of loans that Trinity guaranteed as valid and enforceable. Like many of the notes FNMA purchased in the package, Doyle’s note had clearly been altered: the interest rate was whited out and rewritten, and Doyle’s initials appeared alongside the amended term. Nevertheless, because the practice was common, FNMA did not suspect that the note had been altered without Doyle’s consent. Doyle sued FNMA, and the district court ordered FNMA to cancel Doyle’s note. FNMA appealed, arguing that as a holder in due course without notice of the forgery, FNMA was entitled to enforce the note against Doyle. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, ruling that because the note was non-negotiable under Oklahoma law (there was no sum certain under the adjustable-rate provisions), FNMA was not a holder in due course. However, the Tenth Circuit stayed the case, because the question of whether an adjustable-rate note was in fact negotiable was pending before the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Two years later, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held in Goss v Trinity Savings & Loan Association, 813 P.2d 492 (1991), that a note containing a variable interest rate qualified as a negotiable instrument. Based on Goss, the Tenth Circuit granted FNMA a rehearing and ruled that the note was negotiable—but only if FNMA took the note without notice of the forgery. The Tenth Circuit remanded for the district court to determine whether FNMA had notice of the defect. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court concluded that FNMA was a holder in due course who purchased Doyle’s note without notice of the forgery. Thus, FNMA could enforce the note against Doyle as originally executed. Doyle appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (McWilliams, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 725,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 725,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.