Garrett v. BankWest, Inc.

459 N.W.2d 833 (1990)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Garrett v. BankWest, Inc.

South Dakota Supreme Court
459 N.W.2d 833 (1990)

  • Written by Whitney Kamerzel , JD

Facts

Glen and Elizabeth Garrett (plaintiffs) were experienced ranchers who had a long relationship with BankWest, Inc. (defendant) stemming from ranch-operating loans that were secured by the Garretts’ livestock, crops, and machinery. The Garretts decided to expand their ranch operations and financed the purchase of irrigation equipment through John Hancock Life Insurance Company (Hancock) in exchange for a first mortgage on the Garretts’ ranch. BankWest expanded the Garretts’ operating loans into two lines of credit secured by a second mortgage on the Garretts’ ranch. The rural economy declined, and the Garretts had trouble paying all their loans. The Garretts signed a memorandum of understanding with BankWest that required the Garretts to sell property to reduce their debt and required BankWest to approve any large transfers of cash. The economy continued declining, and BankWest refused the Garretts’ request to loan them money to pay the Hancock loan. Although BankWest tried to negotiate with Hancock to purchase the entire loan, Hancock rejected the offer. Hancock foreclosed on the Garretts’ loans, and the Garretts entered into a liquidation agreement requiring them to give the ranch to BankWest to settle all the Garretts’ unpaid debts. The Garretts then sued BankWest for tort and contract-based claims for the breach of the duty to act in good faith because BankWest refused to continue the Garretts’ line of credit or pay the loan from Hancock. The trial court granted summary judgment for BankWest, and the Garretts appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Kean, J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 805,000 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
  2. 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 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership