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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT