Traders Bank v. Dils

In November 1999, Traders Bank (plaintiff) entered into a contract to finance the operation of Sherman Dils IV’s (Brett Dils) car dealership. In January 2004, Traders Bank found out that the dealership had not been making sufficient payments on the loan. As a result, Traders Bank put a hold on all financing. Brett Dils’s father, Sherman Dils III (Sherman Dils) (defendant), issued a promissory note to Traders Bank for $1,100,000 to bring the dealership up to date under the loan. Sherman Dils asserted that Traders Bank verbally assured him that upon the execution of the note, Traders Bank would fully reinstate the financing. However, Traders Bank only partially reinstated the financing. In April 2005, the dealership went under. Later that month, Traders Bank called the promissory note due. In December 2005, Traders Bank brought suit seeking to recover the balance of the note. Sherman Dils asserted as a counterclaim a tort claim for fraud in the inducement. Specifically, Sherman Dils claimed that when Traders Bank made verbal assurances about the reinstatement of the financing, it knew that it would not fully reinstate the financing. Traders Bank filed a motion for summary judgment on both its claim and for dismissal of the fraud in the inducement counterclaim. Traders Bank argued that an integration clause in the contract precluded the counterclaim. The Circuit Court of Roane County denied both motions. Traders Bank appealed.