ILNews

COA: Store not a beneficiary of letters of credit

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled a department store has no rights derived from letters of credit between a bank and the man developing the site for a new store location.

In Fifth Third Bank v. Kohl's Indiana L.P. and Kohl's Department Store, No. 82A01-0906-CV-272, Fifth Third Bank appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for Kohl's in the store's complaint seeking proceeds from letters of credit issued to the Evansville-Vanderburgh Area Plan Commission as beneficiary. The bank issued four letters of credit to Dennis Owens, who entered into an operation and easement agreement with Kohl's to develop a site for a store. The commission required Owens to provide the letters of credit.

Owens failed to perform the work to Kohl's satisfaction and they sued him for breach of contract. The suit asked the commission to draw on the letters of credit for repayment to Kohl's. Fifth Third then intervened in the suit.

The trial court treated the letters as performance bonds and granted summary judgment for Kohl's. The trial court based its decision on Comment 6 to Indiana Code Section 26-1-5.1-102, but that was an error, the appellate court ruled. The determination whether Owens failed to meet the requirements or stipulations should be made by the commission, not Fifth Third, wrote Judge Edward Najam. The bank isn't required as the issuer to make "the determination of an extrinsic fact" before the commission can draw on each letter of credit, and the exception set out in Comment 6 does not apply here, the judge found.

The trial court also erred in determining Kohl's was a third-party beneficiary to the letters of credit. The Court of Appeals adopted the reasoning in Arbest Construction Co. v. First National Bank & Co. of Oklahoma City, 777 F.2d 581 (10th Cir. 1985), which found no provision in Oklahoma statutes imposed duties on the issuer toward third parties who are neither named by the letter of credit nor proper assignees of the letter of credit.

"Indeed, Indiana Code Section 26-1-5.1-103(d) states that the rights and obligations of an issuer (here, Fifth Third) to a beneficiary (here, the Commission) under a letter of credit are independent of the existence, performance, or nonperformance of a contract or arrangement out of which the letter of credit arises or which underlies it, including contracts or arrangements between the issuer and the applicant and between the applicant and the beneficiary," wrote Judge Najam. "Under Section 103(d), the issuer of a letter of credit has no duty to a third party not named as a beneficiary or properly designated as an assignee."

The appellate judges remanded the case with instructions.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT