No agreement which tends to diminish or defeat the interest of the corporation in
any asset acquired by it under this chapter is valid against the corporation unless
the agreement:
(1) Is in writing;
(2) Was executed by the eligible institution and any person claiming an adverse interest
thereunder, including the obligor, contemporaneously with the acquisition of the asset
by the eligible institution;
(3) Was approved by the board of directors of the eligible institution or its loan committee;
which approval is reflected in the minutes of the board or committee; and
(4) Has been, continuously, from the time of its execution, an official record of the
eligible institution.
Notes of Decisions
Rhode Island Depositors Econ. Prot. Corp. v. Rignanese, 714 A.2d 1190 (R.I. 1998).
· cites it 11× “On October 27, 1995, the motion justice granted summary judgment against Domenic holding that the D’Oench, Dukme doctrine codified in G.L.1956 § 42-116-23 and G.L. 1956 § 19-15-12 invalidated his claim that the oral agreement relieved him from liability.”
Rhode Island Depositors Econ. Prot. Corp. v. Ryan, 697 A.2d 1087 (R.I. 1997).
· cites it 10× “t’s Claims The defendant has sought to avoid liability on the note by advancing two arguments: first, that DEPCO was on notice that defendant had signed the note as an agent and hence cannot claim the protections of the federal holder-in-due-course doctrine; and second, that the…”
Rhode Island Depositors' Econ. Prot. Corp. v. NFD Co., 687 A.2d 452 (R.I. 1997).
· cites it 5× “In opposition to the summary judgment motion, NFD claimed that the advances provided for in the loan agreement were intended to fund the construction of their real estate development and that the failure of Marquette to provide that further funding after its receivership caused…”
Rhode Island Depositors Econ. Prot. Corp. v. Tasca, 729 A.2d 707 (R.I. 1999).
“We based this decision on § 42-116-23, a codification of the D’Oench, Duhme doctrine, holding that “claims arising from agreements [must be] ‘supported by some *709 explicit writing in the bank’s official records or by an express written agreement between the banking institution…”
Rhode Island Depositors Econ. Prot. Corp. v. Rivelli, 672 A.2d 868 (R.I. 1996).
· cites it 2× “” The record clearly indicates that Civito has failed to provide any written or documentary evidence to show that an agreement existed among Civito, Marquette, and the Barristers Court Associates, as required by § 42-116-23. Therefore, the trial justice correctly granted summary…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.