Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/321206871/Gerald-Terry-v-SunTrust-Banks-Incorporated-4th-Cir-2012
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:16:13+00:00

Document:
"DISBURSEMENT" Payment Of Funds "Settles" A Debt!
of South Carolina, at Anderson.
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
in which Judge Agee and Judge Wynn joined.
Santa Barbara, California, for Appellants.
& SPALDING, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Vivian R. Hays, Leapin Eagle LLC, Denise J. Wilson.
fraud, discussed infra at 27-38.
dismissed the Exchangers claim of civil conspiracy. We affirm.
claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id.
we discern no error by the district court.
the proceeds of the sale of the first property. 26 C.F.R.
account). LES failed, however, to complete the exchanges.
interest rates were set began to fail, and the ARS market froze.
arrangement the Exchangers call a Ponzi scheme.
LES filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on November 26, 2008.
loss of the Exchange Funds.
(SAC) on October 6, 2010.
Exchangers have not appealed the dismissal of those claims.
Funds. (SAC 12.) SunTrust and LES, they allege, plan[ned] . .
on the line of credit.
numbered paragraphs in the SAC where they appear.
amended complaint). The Exchangers timely appealed.
beneficiary remains the equitable owner of the trust property.
that the parties intended to create a trust.
trust for the benefit of the Exchangers.
and availability of the Exchange Funds.
purpose of facilitating taxpayers exchange.
chose. Appellants Br. at 41.
The Exchangers also point to industry custom and usage.
to protect and preserve the monies they handle. Appellants Br.
and does not preserve the principal of the exchange funds. J.A.
LESs rights to the funds were limited to those of a trustee.
action that is inconsistent with the establishment of a trust.
this case through either an express or resulting trust.).
alter, contradict, or explain the terms of the contract. Id.
terms themselves are unambiguous. Doswell, 468 S.E.2d at 90.
the contract. Westmoreland, 486 S.E.2d at 293.
fiduciary duties of a trustee. We conclude it does.
unambiguously did not create a trust.
Contract and Fiduciary Duty in Corporate Law, 38 B.C. L. Rev.
rights to the proceeds of the sale of relinquished property. Cf.
In re Exchanged Titles, 159 B.R. 303, 305 (Bankr. C.D. Cal.
consideration of extrinsic evidence of the parties intent.
(Va. 1975) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency 1 (1958)).
doctrines. Restatement (Third) of Agency 1.01 cmt. e.
or as the agent of a party to the transaction, 26 C.F.R.
did not render LES the Exchangers agent. Appellees Br. at 42.
acting on the Exchangers behalf and subject to their control.
become a fiduciary under agency law.
licensee in which the seller has or may have an interest, Va.
by him for another, id. 54.1-2108.
disclaimer, it should be void as a matter of public policy.
Chevrolet, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 337 S.E.2d 744, 748 (Va.
Appellants Reply Br. at 22-23 (citing Fairfax Gas & Supply Co.
v. Hadary, 151 F.2d 939, 940 (4th Cir. 1945); All Bus.
broker under Virginia law, we need not resolve this issue.
purpose or use unlawful means. Id. at 282.
not a violation of 18.2-499.
other coconspirators within the ambit of the conspiracy. Id.
act to further it. Choate v. County of Orange, 103 Cal. Rptr.
2d 339, 353 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000).
and thus was properly dismissed.
conspiracy was to operate an unlawful Ponzi scheme. J.A. 812.
a breach of fiduciary duty or fraud.
adequately allege the existence of an underlying tort).
the misrepresentation and what he obtained thereby. Harrison v.
Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 784 (4th Cir.
Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 1297, at 590 (2d ed.
intent to deceive may be pled generally, Fed. R. Civ. P.
relief for conspiracy. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
November 2008, LES and LFG were preparing to declare bankruptcy.
conclude the Exchangers allegations are insufficient.
were remaining in the loop. Id.
engaged in concerted action for the united purpose of . . .
defrauding the Exchangers out of their Exchange Funds, J.A.
purpose. The allegations do not rise to this level.
LESs bank; the 3318 account was at SunTrusts Richmond branch.
the defrauding of the Exchangers.
action with an intent to defraud.
analogous to the alleged role of certain defendants in Hunter v.
Citibank, N.A., No. C 0902079 JW, 2011 WL 7462143 (N.D. Cal.
of conspiracy to commit fraud and conversion. See id. at *6.
the Exchangers required under Virginia and California law.
its loan commitment to LFG.
dismissal of the Exchangers conspiracy claim.
SunTrust knew of LESs liquidity problems.

References: v.

 v.

 v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.