Owner Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n v. Comerica Bank (In Re Arctic Express Inc.)
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4045
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- OOIDA and representatives seek restitution from Comerica for maintenance escrow funds held under Truth-in-Leasing against Arctic Express in bankruptcy proceedings.
- Maintenance escrow is 9 cents per mile deducted from operator compensation and held under 49 C.F.R. § 376.12(k) to cover maintenance.
- Arctic maintained three Comerica accounts (depository/operating, zero-balance, cash collateral); customer payments deposit into cash collateral were applied to Arctic’s loan balance.
- District court held escrow funds created a statutory trust under § 376.12(k) but only the depository/operating account funds could breach; Comerica won summary judgment.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit agrees a statutory trust exists and that Comerica cannot avoid liability; it remands for further proceedings on liability and limitations defenses.
- Key remaining questions include the scope of the trust and remedies against Comerica, plus whether the statute of limitations bars the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 376.12(k) create a statutory trust for owner-operators? | OOIDA asserts a statutory trust attaches to escrow funds. | Comerica contends no explicit trust term; regulation does not create a trust. | Yes, the regulation creates a statutory trust. |
| Did Comerica breach the trust by applying escrow funds to Arctic's loan balance? | Trust property was dissipated when funds were used to reduce the loan. | Withdrawals were for legitimate debt service and not from trust property. | Yes, Comerica must disgorge the trust property; Arctic breached by encumbering escrow funds. |
| Can Comerica avail itself of bona fide purchaser for value defense? | Defense lacks validity against trust assets. | As a secured lender, Comerica argues it can retain trust assets if bona fide purchaser for value. | No; Comerica is not a bona fide purchaser for value. |
| Is the statute of limitations defense resolveable as a matter of law or for a jury? | Claims were timely; discovery and notices were reasonably diligent. | Limitations period arguably triggered by 1997 suit and later discoveries. | Genuine issues of material fact exist; question for the trier of fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris Trust & Sav. Bank v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., 530 U.S. 238 (2000) (restoration/restitution principles under trust law)
- Nickey Gregory Co. v. AgriCap, LLC, 597 F.3d 591 (4th Cir. 2010) (PACA trust assets and bona fide purchaser analysis in lender context)
- Endico Potatoes, Inc. v. CIT Group/Factoring, Inc., 67 F.3d 1063 (2d Cir. 1995) (PACA-type trust principles; secured lender priority)
- In re Cannon, 277 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2002) (common-law trust concepts applied to trust formation)
- In re Penn Cent. Transp. Co., 486 F.2d 519 (3d Cir. 1973) (trusts may arise from intent even without explicit terminology)
- Branson Sch. Dist. RE-82 v. Romer, 161 F.3d 619 (10th Cir. 1998) (when explicit enumerations indicate Congress intent to create fiduciary relations)