Bank of Commerce v. Hoffman

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiffs-FDIC and bank’s motion for summary judgment in action seeking to collect on two defaulted loans, even though defendants asserted that language in release in prior settlement agreement between FDIC and defendants with respect to third $157,300 loan between parties covered said loans at issue in instant complaint. Relevant language in release in settlement agreement referred only to $157,300 loan, and although agreement contained language releasing defendants from “any and all liabilities…claims and demands whatsoever,” extrinsic evidence from one defendant indicated that settlement release pertained only to $157,300 loan. Ct. rejected one defendant’s claim that his subjective belief that release covered all three loans was dispositive on issue, where: (1) said belief was contrary to same defendant’s own testimony regarding background of settlement agreement; (2) specific provisions in settlement agreement only referred to $157,300 loan; and (3) specific language in agreement should prevail over general language in agreement when there is a potential conflict in contract language.