Feller v. First Interstate Bancsystem, Inc.
2013 MT 90
Mont.2013Background
- Feller sues First Interstate Bancsystem, Inc. and First Interstate Bank after Becker’s embezzlement scheme; Becker was a bank vice president who aided Feller and others.
- Becker’s 2007 suspension preceded an internal bank audit request to verify Feller’s loan balances, which she acknowledged as correct.
- In 2008 Feller was questioned by the FBI about Becker; she felt intimidated but testified the agents were professional and the Bank did not participate in questioning.
- Feller attempted refinancing through the Bank in 2008 but was blocked; she later refinanced with Guild Mortgage and used the funds to payoff her Bank mortgage.
- Escrow balance matters arose in 2008–2009; Becker’s investigation continued, and Feller did not pursue escalation with Bank leadership until after Becker’s 2009 imprisonment.
- In 2011 Feller filed a seven-count complaint alleging various torts and contract claims; the Bank moved for summary judgment on FCRA preemption and other issues, and the district court granted summary judgment in the Bank’s favor in 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FCRA preemption of state claims | Feller argues state claims survive despite preemption. | Bank asserts all state claims tied to credit reporting are preempted by FCRA §1681t(b)(1)(F). | Preemption upheld; state claims related to credit reporting dismissed. |
| Conversion claim viability | Escrow funds improperly controlled by Bank; damages and misappropriation alleged. | Feller failed to show unauthorized control or damages; funds were later returned with interest. | Conversion claim barred; no unauthorized control or damages shown. |
| Emotional distress claims | Independent emotional distress claims should proceed due to severe distress from Bank actions. | Distress not shown to be serious/severe under Sacco and related standards; no compensable distress. | Court affirmed summary judgment dismissing independent emotional distress claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sacco v. High Country Indep. Press., 271 Mont. 209, 896 P.2d 411 (Mont. 1995) (tests for serious or severe emotional distress)
- Henricksen v. State, 84 P.3d 38 (Mont. 2004) (defines when bodily harm accompanying distress supports severity)
- Renville v. Fredrickson, 101 P.3d 773 (Mont. 2004) (factors for proving serious emotional distress in NIED cases)
- Czajkowski v. Meyers, 339 Mont. 503, 172 P.3d 94 (Mont. 2007) (illustrates where distress can be compensable due to extreme conduct)
- St. Peter & Warren, P.C. v. Purdom, 333 Mont. 9, 140 P.3d 478 (Mont. 2006) (standards for damages in tort claims and summary judgment)
- Gebhardt v. D.A. Davidson & Co., 203 Mont. 384, 661 P.2d 855 (Mont. 1983) (general tort and damages principles in Montana)
- King v. Zimmerman, 266 Mont. 54, 878 P.2d 895 (Mont. 1994) (conversion and damages framework in Montana)