LANGLEY et ux. v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (484 U.S. 86)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided December 1, 1987 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 484 U.S. 86 · 108 S. Ct. 396
- Decided
- December 1, 1987
- Term
- October Term 1987
- Vote
- 8–0
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioners W. T. and Maryanne Grimes Langley seek reversal of a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granting the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) summary judgment on its claim for payment of a promissory note signed by petitioners. 792 F. 2d 541 (1986). The Fifth Circuit rejected petitioners’ contention that a defense of misrepresentation of existing facts is not barred by 12 U. S. C. § 1823(e) because such a representation is not an “agreement” under that section. We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict in the Courts of Appeals. 479 U. S. 1028 (1987). Compare Gunter v. Hutcheson, 674 F. 2d 862, 867 (CA11), cert. denied, 459 U. S. 826 (1982); FDIC v. Hatmaker, 756 F. 2d 34, 37 (CA6 1985) (dictum). I The Langleys purchased land in Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana, in 1980. To finance the purchase, they borrowed $450,000 from Planters Trust & Savings Bank of Opelousas, Louisiana, a bank insured by the FDIC. In consideration for the loan, they executed a note, a collateral mortgage, and personal guarantees. The note was renewed several times, the last renewal being in March 1982, for the principal amount of $468,124.41. In October 1983, after the Langleys had failed to pay the first installment due on the last renewal of the note, Planters brought the present suit for principal…
Excerpt of a 16,797-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.