[DO NO T PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 11 63 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 3 :1 0- cv -0 00 54 -J OF BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY,
Pl ai nt iff -Co un te r Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee,

ve rs us
LICHTY BROS. CONSTRUCTI ON, INC., GALEN K . LICHTY, et al , Defen da nt s- Co un te r Cl ai m an ts -Ap pe ll an ts

.

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

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Au gu st 30 , 20 12 )
Befo re TJ OFLAT, JORDAN and KRAVITCH, Cir cu it Ju dg es
. PER CURI AM:

Bran ch Ban ki ng an d Trus t C om pa ny (“ BB& T”) su ed Lich ty Bro s. Case: 12-11639 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 1 of 12Co ns tru ct io n, In c. an d ot he rs , as se rti ng m ul ti pl e br each of co nt ract cl ai m s fo r fai lu re

to pa y at m at ur it y th e in de bt ed ne ss owe d by Licht y un de r se ve ral pro m is so ry no te s

an d gu aran ti es
. Su bjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on was pr em is ed on di ve rs it y pu rs ua nt to 28
U.S.C. § 13 32

. The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d Lich ty’ s f a il ur e to m it ig at e da m ag es

co un te r c l a i m an d de fen se , an d gr an te d BB& T su m m ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t Lich ty.
Lich ty now ap pe al s t he di st ric t co ur t’s o rd ers . Fin di ng no erro r, we affi rm
. I
Bet ween Mar ch 28 , 2 00 6 an d Octo be r 31 , 2 00 6, Lich ty an d BB& T e xe cu te d
si x pr om is so ry no te s, each of whi ch was p e r s o n a l ly gu aran te ed , to fin an ce th e
acq ui si ti on an d con st ru ct io n of vari ou s real es ta te lo ts

. Each on e of th es e no te s was

m o d i f ie d an d/ or ren ewed nu m ero us ti m es
. The ren ewal ag reem en ts m od ifi ed th e

m at ur it y da te s an d so m et im es , if th ere ha d be en a sa le , th e am ou nt du e on th e no te s.
All si x of th es e no te s be cam e du e on Decem be r 18 or 19 , 20 09 , pu rs ua nt to th e fin al

m od ifi cat io n/ ren ewal

. In Decem be r of 20 09 , BB& T de cl in ed to ren ew an d/ or m od ify
th e no te s. It is un di sp ut ed th at Lich ty fai le d to pa y th e ob li ga t i o ns owe d to BB& T

un de r th e n ot es an d g ua ran te es
. In M a y o f 20 10 , BB& T fil ed a co m pl ai nt ag ai ns t Lich ty, as se rti ng m ul ti pl e
br each of co nt ract cl ai m s. Lich ty an swe red , as se rt in g va rio us de fen se s an d

co un te rcl ai m s. BB& T fil ed a m ot io n to di sm is s Lich ty’ s fai lu re to m it ig at e da m ag es

2 Case: 12-11639 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 2 of 12co un te rcl ai m
. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d BB& T’ s m ot io n to di sm is s, an d als o st ru ck

Lich ty’ s fai lu re t o m it ig at e d am ag es affi rm at iv e d efen se . BB&T s ub se qu en tl y fil ed

a m ot io n for su m

m ary jud gm en t, wh ic h t he di st ric t co ur t g ran te d. The dis tri ct co ur t
th en en te red a jud gm en t award in g BB& T $1 ,93 5,0 11 .76 pl us in te res t an d
$2 90 ,25 0.2 6 i n a tt or ne y ’s fees

. II
W e rev ie w de no vo a cl ai m di sm is se d pu rs ua nt to Ru le 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ). Se e
W il ch omb e v. TeeVe e To on s, Inc. , 55 5 F.3d 94 9, 95 8 (11 th Ci r. 20 09 ). To su rv iv e a

m ot io n to di sm is s un d e r R u l e 12 (b )(6 ), th e pl ai nt iff m us t pl ead “ ei th er di rect or
in fere nt ia l al le ga ti on s res pe ct in g al l th e mat eri al el em en ts ne ces sa ry to su st ai n a

reco ve ry un de r so m e vi ab le le ga l th eo ry .” Fin

. Se c. Ass ur an ce, In c. v. St ep he ns , In c. , 50 0 F.3 d 12 76 , 12 82 -8 3 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ) (in te rn al q u o t at io n m ark s om it te d)

.

“ Dis m is sa l is th eref

or e pe rm it te d whe n on th e ba si s of a di sp os it iv e is su e of la w, no

co n s t r u c t io n of th e fact ua l al le ga ti on s wil l su pp or t th e cau se of act io n.” Glo ver v.
Li gg et t Grp ., In c. , 45 9 F.3 d 13 04 , 13 08 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 06 ) (in te rn a l qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d)

. W e rev ie w d e no vo th e gr an t or de ni al of su m m ary jud gm en t, an d ap pl y th e

sa m e le ga l st an da rd as th e di st ric t co ur t. Se e Perr y v. Se c’y, Fla

. Dep ’t of Co rr

. , 66 4

F

. 3 d 1 35 9, 13 63 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 11 ). Und er Ru le 56 , “ [s ]um m ary jud gm en t i s

3 Case: 12-11639 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 3 of 12ap pr op ria te whe n th e ev id en ce, vi ewed in th e li gh t m os t fav or ab le to th e no nm ov in g

pa rty, pr es en ts no ge nu in e is su e of m at eri al fact an d co m pe ls jud gm en t as a m at te r of
la w in fav or of th e m ov in g pa rty.” Bro wn v. Se c’y of S t a t e o f Fl a

. , 66 8 F.3 d 12 71 , 12 74 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 12 ) (in t e r na l qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Acco rd Cel ot ex Co rp

. v.
Ca tr et t, 47 7 U.S. 3 17 , 32 2- 23 (19 86 ).

II I

“ W he n it ex erci se s juris di ct io n bas ed on di ve rs it y of cit iz en sh ip , 28 U.S.C. §
13 32 , a fed eral co ur t m

us t ap pl y t h e c h o i c e of la w ru le s of th e fo ru m st at e to
de te rm in e whi ch su bs ta nt iv e la w go ve rn s t he act io n.” U.S. Fid

. & Gua r. Co

. v.
Li be rt y Su rp lu s In s. Co rp

. , 55 0 F.3 d 10 31 , 10 33 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 08 ). Geo rg ia ge ne ral ly

en fo rces co nt ract ua l ch oi ce of la w pr ov is io ns un le ss th ey are co nt rary to pu bl ic

po li cy
. Se e Ca rr v. K

u p f e r , 25 0 Ga. 10 6, 10 7, 29 6 S.E.2d 56 0, 56 2 (1 98 2) ;
Na ti on wi de Lo gi st ic s, In c. v. Co nd or Tr an sp ., In c. , 27 0 Ga.App

. 27 7, 28 0, 60 6 S.E.2d
31 9, 32 2 (2 00 4)

. The lo an ag reem en ts be twee n BB& T an d Li c h t y p ro vi de th at
Geo rg ia la w w i l l g o v e r n. The pa rti es se em to ag ree th at su bs ta nt iv e Geo rg ia la w
ap pl ie s be cau se al l of th e cas es ci te d in th ei r br ie fs di sc us s Geo rg ia la w. Acco rd in gl y ,
we to o a pp ly G eo rg ia law.

IV On ap pe al , Lich ty argu es th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d (1 ) in gra nt in g B B&T’s

4 Case: 12-11639 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 4 of 12m ot io n to di sm is s it s de fen se an d co un te rcl ai m o f m it ig at io n of da m ag es ; (2 ) in

gr an ti ng BB& T’ s m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t rel at in g to it s de fen se of waiv er by

m ut ua l de pa rtu re fro m th e lo an ag reem en t; (3 ) in gr an ti ng B B & T’ s m ot io n fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t rel at in g to it s de fen se th at BB& T’ s a t t o r n e y’s fees cl ai m is an

un en fo rcea bl e li qu i d a te d da m ag es pr ov is io n; (4 ) in gr an ti ng BB& T’ s m ot io n fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t rel at in g to it s de fen se an d co un te rcl ai m th at BB& T br each ed it s
d ut y of go od fai th an d fai r de al in g; (5 ) in gr an ti ng BB& T’ s m ot io n f o r s u mm a r y jud gm en t rel at in g to it s de fen se an d co un te rcl ai m of se to ff an d reco up m en t; an d (6 )
in gr an ti ng BB& T’ s m ot io n f o r s um m ary jud gm en t rel at in g to it s co un te rcl ai m fo r

at to rn ey ’s fees . W e ad dr es s ea ch of t he se is su es in tu rn
. 1

A
Lich ty arg ue s th at t h e di st ric t co ur t erre d in di sm is si ng it s de fen se an d

co un te rcl ai m th at BB& T ha d a du ty to m it ig at e da m ag es be cau se un de r Geo rg ia la w

a pa rty in

jure d by a br each of co nt rac t i s r eq ui red to le ss en th e da m ag es
. Se e
O.C.G.A. § 13 -6 -5

. The fai lu re to m it ig at e da m ag es , ho wev er, is an affi rm at iv e
de fen se to a br each of co nt ract cl ai m an d no t a co un te rcl ai m
. Se e No rr is v. Jo hn so n ,

Al t houg h L ichty ’s brief prese nts the i ssues of whether the district court erre d in g ranting 1 BB &T ’s motion for summary judgme nt on the defe nses and counter claims of setoff and rec oupment an d for attorney ’s fee s, L ichty failed to make any substantive arg ument in support of thes e contentions. I n failing to do so, L ichty waived these arg uments. See Hamilton v. Southland Christ ian Sch., Inc

. , 680 F.3d 1316, 1319 ( 11th Cir. 2012) (“A passing ref ere nce to an is sue i n a brie f is not enoug h, and the f

ailure to make arg uments and cite a uthorities in support of an issue wa ives it.”)
5 Case: 12-11639 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 5 of 1220 9 Ga. 29 3, 29 6- 97 , 71 S.E.2d 54 0, 5 42 (19 52 ) (ac kn owl ed gi ng th at th e fai lu re to

m it ig at e d am ag es “ can be in vo ke d o nl y by w ay of d efen se ”). Bec au se th e fai lu re t o

m it ig at e d a mag es is an affi rm at iv e de fen se , we fin d no erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t’s
di sm is sa l o f Lich ty’ s co un te rcl ai m for fai lu re t o m it ig at e d am ag es
. To th e ex te nt th at , in arg ui ng t h a t B B&T ha d a du ty to m it ig at e da m ag es , Lich ty is arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in st rik in g it s affi rm at iv e de fen se th at
BB& T fai le d to m it ig at e da m ag es , we do no t fin d th is arg um en t pe rs ua si ve
. W he re 2
th e no te s an d gu aran te es co nt ai n ab so lu te pr om is es to pa y , th ere is no du ty to m it ig at e
da m ag e s
. Se e, e.g

. , Big Sa nd y P’sh ip , LLC v. Bra nc h Ban ki ng & Tr us t Co

. , 31 3 Ga.App

. 87 1, 8 72 -7 3, 7 23 S.E.2d 82 , 84 (2 01 2) ; Vict or y Si gn In du s., Ltd

. v. Pot te r , 20 8 Ga.App

. 57 0, 57 1, 43 0 S.E.2d 88 2, 88 3 (1 99 3)

. Bec au se th e no te s an d gu aran te es

at i s s u e i n t h is cas e ap pe ar to be ab so lu te pr om is es to pa y , we fin d no ab us e of
di sc ret io n i n t he di st ric t co ur t’s s tri ki ng of Li ch ty’ s fa il ur e to m it ig at e d efen se
. B
Lich ty al so arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng BB& T’ s m ot io n fo r

su m m ary jud gm en t rel at in g to it s de fen se of waiv er by m ut ua l de pa rtu re be cau se

We revie w a district court’s decision to strike any defe nses that are insufficient as a matter 2 of law for abuse of discretion. See State Exc h. Bank v. Ha r t l i n e , 6 9 3 F.2d 1350, 1352 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Nationw ide Ins. Co. v. Cent

. Mo. Elec. Coop., Inc. , 278 F.3d 742, 748 (8th Cir. 2001) (“B eca

use a district court enjoy s liberal discretion under Rule 12(f) , we revie w this claim for an abuse of discre tion.”) (c itation omit ted).
6

Case: 12-11639 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 6 of 12is su es of fact ex is t as to whe th er BB& T waiv ed an y al le ge d de fau lt s on th e no te s, an d

BB& T fai le d to m eet th e co nd it i o n p r eced en t of se nd in g a st ric t co m pl ia nc e

no ti fic at io n. Acco rd in g to Lich ty, pa y m en t s w e r e ro ut in el y m ad e an d acce pt ed by
BB& T aft er th e ex pi rat io n of th e no te s an d ren ewal s, t h e n ot es were ro ut in el y

ren ewed aft er th ei r ex pi rat io n, an d BB& T f ai le d to in si st up on th ei r pa y m en t whe n
th ey cam e d ue
. U nd er Geo rg ia la w, whe n pa rti es to a co nt ract de pa rt fro m th e te rm s o f t h e
ag reem en t, reas on ab le no ti ce m us t be gi ve n of th e in te nt io n to rel y on th e ex act te rm s
of th e ag reem en t be fo re on e pa rty m ay reco ve r ag ai ns t th e ot he r fo r fai lu re to fo ll ow
th e ex act te rm s of th e co nt ract

. Se e O.C.G.A. § 13

- 4

- 4

. “ Fo r a de pa rtu re fro m th e

te rm s o f a co nt ract to be su ffi ci en t to req ui re [n ot ic e un de r O.C.G.A. § 13 -4 -4 ], th e
de pa rtu re m

us t b e m ut ua l an d i nt en de d, s uc h t ha t th e pa rti es ha ve es se nt ia ll y a n ew
ag reem en t co nc ern in g th e req ui rem en ts of th e or ig in al co nt ract .” Dun ca n v. La gu na s , 25 3 Ga. 6 1, 6 2, 3 16 S.E.2d 74 7, 7 48 (19 84 ).
Alt ho ug h Lich ty m ay ha ve un il at eral ly in te rp ret ed BB& T’ s pr ev io us ren ewal s

an d/ or m od ifi cat io ns of th e no te s to ha ve be en waiv ers of th e s p e c i fie d da te s of

mat ur it y , th ere is no ev id en ce th at BB& T ev er in te nd ed th em to be so
. In d e e d , BB& T’ s p ract ic e o f req ui rin g Li ch ty to ex ecu te ne w m od ifi cat io ns an d re ne wals in
writ in g sh ows th at BB& T co nt in ue d to in te nd to ad he re to th e te rm s of th e no te s, an d

7 Case: 12-11639 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 7 of 12th at it co nt in ue d to req ui re an y fu rth er m od ifi cat io ns or ren ewal s to be in writ in g an d

su bjec t to it s de si re to en te r in to an ot he r m od ifi cat io n or rene wal. Add it io na ll y , an y

ev id en ce of BB& T’ s de pa rtu re fro m th e te rm s of pr ev io us m od ifi cat io ns or ren ewal s
ha s no be ari ng on whe th er BB& T i nt en de d to de pa rt fr o m t h e t e r m s of th e no te s at
is su e he re. Se e Min or v. Ci ti ze ns & S. Na t’l Ban k , 17 7 Ga.App

. 11 5, 11 7, 33 8 S.E.2d
46 6, 46 8 (1 98 5) (aff

i r mi n g g ran t of su m

m ary jud gm en t to ba nk whe re de fen da nt

arg ue d th at is su e of fact ex is te d reg a r d i ng m ut ua l de pa rtu re be cau se th e ba nk ha d

pr ev io us ly re str

uc tur ed it s lo an rel at io ns hi p wit h th e de fen da nt – in cl ud in g ne w lo an s,

m od ifi cat io ns , ext en si on s, et c. – a t l eas t s ev en ti m es ).
Alt ho ug h th e is su e of waiv er is ge ne ral ly one for th e jury, se e, e.g

. , Y ou ng v.
Oak Lea f Bui ld er s, In c. , 27 7 Ga.App

. 27 4, 27 7, 62 6 S.E.2d 24 0, 24 3 (2 00 6) , Geo rg ia

co ur ts ha ve so m et im es ru le d on th e qu es ti on as a m at te r of la w. Se e, e.g

. , Sa la ha t v.
FDIC , 29 8 Ga.App

. 62 4, 62 9, 68 0 S.E.2d 63 8, 64 2- 43 (2 00 9 ) ( a ffi rm in g gr an t of

su m m ary jud gm en t whe re th e reco rd was de vo id of an y ev id en ce th at th e ba nk ag reed

to to le rat e no np ay m en t or in te nd ed to fo reg o it s en fo rcem en t rig ht s un de r th e no te );

Min or , 33 8 S.E.2d at 46 8; Vau gh n & Co

. v. Sa ul , 14 3 Ga.App

. 74 , 83 -8 4, 23 7 S.E.2d
6 2 2 , 62 9 (1 97 7) (aff

irming gr an t of su m

m ary jud gm en t an d co nc lu di ng th at va gu e

st at em en ts of a be li ef th at th e te rm s of a n o t e m ay be m od ifi ed are no t le ga ll y

su ffi ci en t to im

pl y a “ m ut ua l ne w ag reem en t” or crea te an is su e of fact ). Acco rd in gl y ,

8 Case: 12-11639 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 8 of 12we fin d no erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng th at Lich ty’ s m ut ua l de pa rtu re de fen se
fai ls as a m at te r of

law.
C
Lich ty con te nd s t ha t an is su e o f fact ex is ts as to whe th er BB&T is en ti tl ed to

at to rn ey ’s f

ees un de r th e 1 5% l iq ui da te d d am ag es pro vi si on be cau se th at pr ov is io n
is an un en fo rcea bl e pe na lt y
. Lich ty co rrec tl y arg ue s th at , un de r Geo gi a la w,

“ li q u i d a te d da m ag es are no t fav or ed whe n th ey act as a pe na lt y [.]” Ca pr ic or n Sy s.,
In c. v. Ped

ne ka r , 24 8 Ga.App

. 42 4, 42 7, 54 6 S.E.2d 55 4, 55 8 (2 00 1)

. In each of th e

no te s at is su e he re, Lich ty ag reed to pa y th e at to rn ey ’s fees an d l e g a l e x pe ns es
in cu rred by BB& T in co nn ect io n wit h th e co ll ect io n of Lich ty’ s ob li ga ti on s un de r th e

no te s. The no te s pr ov id e th at BB& T wil l be en ti tl ed to co ll ect bo th at to rn ey ’s fees in

an am ou nt eq ua l to 15 % of th e pr i n c i p a l an d in te res t ou ts ta nd in g an d al l co st s of

co ll ect io n. The di st ric t co ur t ack no wled ge d th at th is am ou nt , as of Ju ne 9, 20 11 ,
eq ua le d $ 29 0,2 50 .26

. The 15 % pr ov is io n, ho wev er, is pe rm it t e d un de r O.C.G.A. § 13 -1 -1 1, an d is

no t an un en fo rcea bl e li qu i d a t e d da m ag es pe na lt y
. In rel ev an t pa rt, § 13 -1 -1 1

pr ov id es : (a) Obl ig at io ns to pa y at to rn ey ’s f ees u p o n a n y n ot e or ot he r ev id en ce of in de bt ed ne ss , in ad di ti on to th e rat e of in te res t sp eci fie d th erei n, sh al l be va li d an d en fo rcea bl e an d co ll ect ab le as a pa rt of su ch de bt if su ch

9 Case: 12-11639 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 9 of 12no te or ot he r ev id en ce of in de bt ed ne ss is co ll e c t e d by or th ro ug h an

at to rn ey aft er m at ur it y , su bjec t to su bs ect io n (b ) of th is Co de se ct io n an d to th e fo ll owi ng pro vi si on s: (1 ) If su ch n o t e o r ot he r ev id en ce of in de bt ed ne ss pr ov id es fo r at to rn ey ’s fees in so m e sp eci fic pe rcen t of th e pr in ci p a l a nd in te res t owi ng th ereo n, su ch pr ov is io n an d ob li g a t i o n sh al l be va li d an d
en fo rcea bl e up to bu t no t in ex ces s of 15 pe rcen t o f t he pr in ci pa l an d in te res t o win g o n s ai d n ot e o r ot he r ev id en ce o f in de bt ed ne ss
. . . . Here, BB& T an d Lich ty si gn ed co nt ract s w i t h pr ov is io ns es se nt ia ll y tra ck in g th is

st at ut or y la ng ua ge
. As po in te d ou t by th e di st ric t co ur t, “ [t]he pa rti es were free to

co nt ract as th ey sa w fit , an d co nt ract ed in acco rd an ce wit h O.C.G.A. § 13 -1 -1 1.” Fo r

a pr ov is io n li ke th e on e he re to be en fo rcea bl e, Geo rg ia l a w r e q u i r e s th at (1 ) th e

no te ’s te rm s in cl ud e an ob li ga ti on to pa y at to rn ey ’s fees ; (2 ) th e de bt owe d ha s

m at ur ed ; (3 ) no ti ce was gi ve n to t h e d e b t o r in fo rm in g hi m th at if he pa y s th e de bt
wit hi n te n da y s, he m ay av oi d a tt or ne y ’s fees ; (4 ) th e te n da y pe rio d ha s ex pi red
wit ho ut pa y m en t in fu ll ; an d (5 ) th e de bt be co ll ect ed by or th ro ug h an at to rn ey
. Se e
Ter mNet Mer ch

. Se rv s., In c. v. Phi ll ip s , 27 7 Ga. 34 2, 34 4, 58 8 S.E.2d 74 5, 74 7 (2 00 3)

. Not ab ly, Lich ty do es no t co nt en d th at an y of th es e st at ut or y co nd it io ns were

no t m et

. As a res ul t, we fin d no erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t’s reject io n of Li c h t y ’s

co nt en ti on th at th e at to rn ey ’s fees pro vi si on is an un en fo rcea bl e p en al ty.

D

10 Case: 12-11639 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 10 of 12Lich ty co nt en ds th at an is su e of fact ex is ts as t o whe th er BB& T b reac he d it s

du ty o f g o o d f

a i t h an d fai r de al in g. Und er Geo rg ia la w, “ [e]ver y co nt ract im pl ie s a

co ve na nt of go od fai th an d fai r d e a l in g in th e co nt ract ’s pe rfo rm an ce an d

en fo rcem en t.” OnBr an d Med ia v. Co de x Co ns ul ti ng

, In c. , 30 1 Ga.App

. 14 1, 14 7, 68 7
S.E.2d 16 8, 17 4 (2 00 9)

. Thi s du ty, h o w e v e r , “ ‘cann ot be br each ed ap art fro m th e

co nt ract pr ov is io ns it m od ifi es an d th eref or e can no t pr ov id e an in de pe nd en t ba si s fo r
li ab il it y .’ ” Mil le r v. Ch as e Home Fin ., LLC , 67 7 F.3 d 11 13 , 11 17 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 12 ) (q uo ti ng OnBr an d Me di a , 68 7 S .E.2d at 1 74 ).
Lich ty arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in fin di ng th at it ha d no t as se rte d an y
in de pe nd en t br each up on whi ch BB & T’ s b r e a c h of th e du ty of go od fai th an d fai r
de al in g co ul d be ba se d. Lich ty co nt en ds th at B B & T b r e a c he d it s co nt ract s wit h
Lich ty by m an uf

act ur in g de fau lt s th ro ug h it s refu sa l to re n ew an d/ or m od ify th e

no te s, as it ha d pr ev io us ly d on e a nu m be r of ti m es . Th e lo an a g r e em en ts , h owe ve r,
do no t co nt ai n an y pr o v i s i o n t ha t wou ld im po se on BB& T a du ty to ren ew an d/ or

m od ify the no te s.
The pr om is so ry no te s each refe ren ce se pa rat e lo an ag reem en ts , whi ch

co nt ai ne d ad di ti on al pr ov is io ns go ve rn in g th e lo an s. Am on g th es e pr ov is io ns was a
li st of th e ev en ts of de fau lt , an y of whi ch wou l d a l l o w B B & T to de cl are th e lo an
immed ia te ly du e an d pa y ab le

. One of th es e ev en ts of de fau lt was th e bo rro wer’s

11 Case: 12-11639 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 11 of 12fai lu re to m ak e an y pa y m en t un de r th e no te whe n d u e
. W e fin d no la ng ua ge in an y

of th e lo an ag reem en ts , no te s, or gua ran te es ob li ga ti ng BB& T to co nt in ua ll y ren ew

an d/ or m od ify th e no te s. Lich ty ha s fai le d to m ak e an y sh owi ng th at BB& T so m eh ow

co m m it te d an in de pe nd en t br each whi ch co ul d fo rm th e ba si s fo r a br each of th e du ty
of go od fai th an d fai r de al in g. W e th eref or e fin d no erro r in th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng
th at Lich ty’ s d efen se an d c ou nt ercl ai m for br each of th e du ty of go od fai th an d fa ir
de al in g fa il s.
V
The di st ric t co ur t’s d is m is sa l of Lich ty’ s de fen se an d c ou nt ercl ai m of f ai lu re

to m it ig at e d am ag es , and it s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t t o B B&T, are affi rm ed

. A F F I R M E D .

12 Case: 12-11639 Date Filed: 08/30/2012 Page: 12 of 12