Thomas v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
2011 Colo. LEXIS 475
| Colo. | 2011Background
- Thomas and Thomas Properties sued New Frontier Bank and affiliated entities in state court for declaratory relief, specific performance, and related claims before the bank was placed in receivership.
- The FDIC was appointed as receiver in April/May 2009 and substituted for New Frontier Bank in the case, with notices advising creditors to file administrative claims by a bar date.
- Thomas did not file any proof of claim by the Bar Date (July 15, 2009) or by the later discovered creditor deadline (October 15, 2009).
- Thomas sought damages, recoupment of $500,000 paid for golf memberships, and related relief against the FDIC as receiver.
- The trial court denied the FDIC’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion arguing FIRREA exhaustion was not jurisdictional; the FDIC sought appellate relief under CAR 21.
- Colorado Supreme Court held that FIRREA’s administrative exhaustion is mandatory and precludes jurisdiction over pre-receivership claims when exhausted; where not exhausted, jurisdiction is divested and claims must be dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FIRREA exhaustion is required for pre-receivership claims | Thomas argues exhaustion is not required for pre-receivership claims. | FDIC argues FIRREA's administrative process applies to pre-receivership claims as a jurisdictional prerequisite. | Exhaustion required; no jurisdiction without exhaustion. |
| Effect of failure to exhaust on state court jurisdiction over pre-receivership claims | Continued jurisdiction persists despite lack of exhaustion. | Lack of exhaustion divests court of subject-matter jurisdiction over pre-receivership claims. | Failure to exhaust divests jurisdiction; dismiss pre-receivership claims. |
| Whether pre-receivership claims may proceed if exhausted after notice | If exhausted, pre-receivership claims may continue in state court. | Exhaustion allows continuation only after administrative resolution; otherwise, no jurisdiction remains. | Exhaustion allows continuing only after administrative resolution; otherwise, dismissal remains. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marquis v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 965 F.2d 1148 (1st Cir. 1992) (administrative exhaustion is mandatory for FIRREA claims, pre- and post-receivership)
- Brady Dev. Co. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 14 F.3d 998 (4th Cir. 1994) (exhaustion is required to efficiently administer claims)
- Mustang Partners v. Resolution Trust Corp., 946 F.2d 103 (10th Cir. 1991) (precludes state court jurisdiction absent exhaustion for pre-receivership claims)
- Whatley v. Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 905 (5th Cir. 1994) (recognizes minority views but supports exhaustion framework)
- In re Lewis, 398 F.3d 735 (6th Cir. 2005) (exhaustion applies to FIRREA pre-receivership claims)
- Resolution Trust Corp. v. Binford, 844 P.2d 810 (N.M. 1992) (state courts generally require FIRREA exhaustion for pre-receivership claims)