HSBC Bank USA, National Ass'n v. Anderson
2017 MT 257
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Defendant Richard Anderson (Canadian) managed Limegrove Overseas, Ltd., a BVI corporation that owned a Lake Whitefish, Montana vacation property; Limegrove pledged that property as loan collateral to HSBC.
- HSBC made a $15.5 million loan (2006) secured by a Trust Indenture on the Montana property; the Note, TLA, Replacement Note, and seven forbearance amendments contained New York choice‑of‑law clauses; the Trust Indenture expressly invoked the law of the jurisdiction where the land is located (Montana).
- Anderson defaulted by failing to make required principal payments and because pledged stock fell below a trigger price; HSBC and Anderson executed a Forbearance Agreement and seven subsequent amendments extending maturity dates; no eighth extension was granted and Anderson failed to pay after the final maturity (Jan. 15, 2012).
- HSBC initiated a judicial foreclosure in Montana (2012). Anderson asserted defenses (estoppel, waiver) and counterclaims (breach of implied covenant, breach of implied contract, Montana Consumer Protection Act). Limegrove later dismissed its claims; Anderson remained the sole defendant asserting defenses/counterclaims.
- Discovery dispute: Anderson disclosed a banking expert after the discovery deadline and after HSBC produced some internal policies; the district court excluded Anderson’s expert under M. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) for untimely disclosure (no substantial justification or harmlessness) and struck his affidavit.
- The district court granted HSBC summary judgment on foreclosure and on Anderson’s counterclaims; judgment awarded HSBC the outstanding principal, interest, costs, and foreclosure decree. Anderson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (HSBC) | Defendant's Argument (Anderson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Exclusion of late‑disclosed expert | Exclusion proper under M. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1); no substantial justification or harmlessness | Late disclosure was substantially justified by HSBC’s late production of credit policies/CARMS | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion excluding expert (no substantial justification or harmlessness) |
| 2. Choice of law for foreclosure vs. defenses/counterclaims | Montana law governs foreclosure (real property); New York law governs defenses/counterclaims because Anderson is party to contracts with New York choice‑of‑law | Trust Indenture (governed by Montana) controls and thus Montana law should govern whole dispute | Affirmed: Montana governs foreclosure; New York governs defenses/counterclaims (Anderson not party to Trust Indenture) |
| 3. Summary judgment to foreclose (non‑payment) | HSBC proved debt, nonpayment, and ownership of debt—entitled to foreclosure | Anderson claims waiver/estoppel from repeated extensions; contends HSBC waived right to payment | Affirmed: no material fact on nonpayment or waiver; forbearances did not waive HSBC’s right to demand payment beyond agreed extension periods |
| 4. Summary judgment on counterclaims | Anderson failed to produce admissible evidence (excluded expert; contradicted sworn testimony); New York law applies and does not support claimed breaches | Implied covenant and Montana consumer protection claims were viable under Montana law | Affirmed: summary judgment for HSBC on counterclaims—implied covenant cannot create obligations beyond contract; Anderson did not plead or prove a New York law violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Doherty v. Fannie Mae, 374 Mont. 151, 319 P.3d 1279 (sanctions under M. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) are self‑executing absent substantial justification or harmlessness)
- Sunburst School Dist. No. 2 v. Texaco, Inc., 338 Mont. 259, 165 P.3d 1079 (district court’s exclusion of expert testimony reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Masters Group Intl., Inc. v. Comerica Bank, 380 Mont. 1, 352 P.3d 1101 (Montana choice‑of‑law test; enforce clear contractual choice unless Montana public policy is contravened)
- Farm Credit Bank v. Hill, 266 Mont. 258, 879 P.2d 1158 (elements required for a prima facie foreclosure case)
- First Natl. Bank v. Quinta Land and Cattle Co., 238 Mont. 335, 779 P.2d 48 (foreclosure prerequisites)
