FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J AN 19, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 99 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 9- cv -0 05 23 -KOB U.S. BANK, NA, as s uc ces so r to FDIC as rece iv er fo r ParkNati on al Ban k, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us MIC HAEL HO FFM AN, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (J an ua ry 19 , 20 11 ) Befo re BLACK, BARKETT an d M ARCUS, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Mi ch ael Hoff m anap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t t o U.S. Ba nk , N.A. (U.S. Ban k) in anact io n a ll eg in g b reac h o f co nt ract in vo lv in g c omm erci al pro pe rty. Hoffm anco nt en ds th e d is tri ctco urt erredin 1 gr an ti ng rel ie f be cau se hi s af firm at iv e d efen se of e qu it ab le est op pe l cr eat es a ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factas t o t he va li di ty of U.S. Ban k’s cl ai m . Spe ci fic al ly, Hof fm ancla im s U.S. Ba nksh ou ldbe equi tabl y est op pe d fr om

en fo rci ng th e gu aran ty agree m en t ex ecu te d b y hi m in fav orof No bl e Bu il di ng , LLC (Nob le ), be cau se th e b an k’s o wn ac ti on s an d m is st at em en ts di rect ly con tri bu te d t o t he de fau ltof t he lo an . U.S. Bankcla im s Ho ffm anfai le d t o m ak e p aym en ts pu rs ua nt to th e g ua ran ty agree m en t af te r th e n ot e wen t i nt o d efau ltan d i s n ow l iabl e in th e am ou ntof $ 1,2 22 ,48 4.6 0. Afterrev ie w, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f 2 su m m ary jud gm en t. 3

U.S. Ba nk was substituted as the plaintiff f or Park National Ba

nk afte r the F DI C took 1 over Par k National B ank and tr ansfe rre d its assets to U.S. Bank. The re cord shows the proper ty went into fore closure a

nd was late r sold. U.S. Ba nk 2 contends this figure r epre sents the def iciency amount due under

the note, af

ter de ductingthe fore closure bid pr ice a

nd the amount held in the esc row fund, a nd including pr e-judgment interest and attorney ’s fe es. We reviewa district cour t’s grant of summar

y judgme nt de novo, viewingall fac ts in the 3 light most favor able to the non- moving pa rty . W illingham Sport

s, Inc. v . Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Ex plosives , 415 F.3d 1274, 1276 ( 11th Cir. 2005)
.

2To es tabl is h t he de fen se of e qu it ab le est op pe l u nd er Al ab am a law, a party

m us t s ho w th e fo ll owi ng :

(1 ) Tha t t he pe rs on ag ai ns t wh om est op pe l i s as se rte d . . . co m m un ic at es so m ethi ng ina m is le ad in g way, eith er b y word s, co nduc t, o r si le nc e, with the in te nt io n t ha t t he co m m un ic at io n wil l b e act edon ; (2 ) Tha t t he pe rs on see ki ng to ass ertest op pe l, who lac ks kn owl ed ge of the fact s, re li es up on [th e] co m m un ic at io n; an d (3 ) Tha t t he pe rs onrel y in g wo ul d b e ha rm edm at eri al ly if th e act oris lat er p erm it te d t o a ss erta cl ai m in co ns is te ntwit h h is earl ie r co nduc t. All en v. Benn et t , 82 3 S o. 2 d 6 79 , 68 5 (Al a. 20 01 ) (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . As s ta te d i n t he di st ric t co urt’s wel l-r eas on edord er, ev enass um in g ar gu en do th atHoff

m anco ul d s ho w th e fi rs t an d s eco ndele m en ts of e qu it ab le es to pp el , hi s d efen se fai ls be cau se he ha s n otsh own th e th irdele m en t– th athe wou ldbe ha rm edm at eri al ly if U.S. Ban k was pe rm it te d t o a ss erta cl ai m in co ns is te ntwit h t he ir e arl ie r co nduc t. Alt ho ug h U.S. Ba nkall eg ed ly refus edto al lo w Hoffman to us e es cro w fun ds forim pr ov em en ts to th e p ro pe rty, U. S. Ban k’s subs eque ntactof app lying th e es cro w fun ds to th e d eb t o wedby N ob le is co ns is te ntwit h U.S. Ba nk ’s st at em en t t ha t t he fun ds wou ldno t b e u se d fo r im pr ov em en ts be cau se th ey m ig htbe ne ed edto pa y

th e d eb t. Fu rth er, Ho ffm an ha s n otsh own ho w any act o r st at em en t m ad e b y U.S. Ban k i s i nc on si st en t wi th it s in st an t cl ai m

see ki ng pa ym en t u nd er t he gu aran ty agree m en t. Thu s, Ho ffm anha s 3fai le d t o e st ab li sh anequi tabl e es to pp el de fen se , andwe affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s gr an t o f su m

m ary jud gm en t. AFFIRMED .

4