McCamish, Martin, Brown & Loeffler v. F.E. Appling Interests
Texas Supreme Court
991 S.W.2d 787 (1999)
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
F.E. Appling Interests (Appling) was the managing partner of Boca Chica Development Company (Boca) (plaintiffs). Boca obtained credit from Victoria Savings Association (VSA) to finance a project. VSA declined to extend additional credit to Boca to complete the project. Boca went bankrupt and brought a lender-liability claim against VSA. Concerned about VSA’s solvency, Boca agreed to settle the claim but wanted assurance that the settlement would be enforceable against the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC). VSA’s law firm, McCamish, Martin, Brown & Loeffler (McCamish) (defendant) represented in the settlement agreement that the agreement met the statutory requirements for binding the FSLIC. In fact, the agreement had not been approved by the VSA board as required. VSA was declared insolvent. A federal court held that the agreement did not bind the FSLIC. Appling and Boca sued McCamish, claiming that the firm negligently misrepresented that the VSA board had approved the agreement. The court granted summary judgment to McCamish, finding that McCamish owed no duty to Appling. The court of appeals reversed. McCamish petitioned for review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hankinson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 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.
