French Broad Place, LLC v. Asheville Savings Bank
North Carolina Court of Appeals
816 S.E.2d 886 (2018)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
French Broad Place, LLC (plaintiff) undertook a mixed-use construction project for which it sought a loan from Asheville Savings Bank, S.S.B. (defendant). The initial loan commitment specified a sum of $9,950,000, but the ultimate loan agreement was for $7,750,000. The loan agreement included a clause stating that it superseded the earlier loan commitment. French Broad Place later submitted a request for an additional $725,801, which Asheville Savings Bank approved, bringing the total amount of the loan to $8,475,801. This was recorded in a modification agreement. Although Asheville Savings Bank disbursed the stipulated amount, French Broad Place brought suit for breach of contract. More specifically, French Broad Place alleged that Asheville Savings Bank (1) failed to provide the initially agreed-upon amount of $9,950,000, (2) underfunded the loan, (3) unnecessarily delayed approval of the request for an additional amount, (4) refused to provide additional financing as promised, and (5) violated the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Asheville Savings Bank on all claims, finding no evidence of a breach of contract. French Broad Place appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tyson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.