Trudel v. SunTrust Bank
288 F. Supp. 3d 239
| D.C. Cir. | 2018Background
- In 1996 Yevgenyi Scherban and his wife were murdered; Scherban had over $100 million and a joint SunTrust savings account (ending 5216) with over $1M deposited in the mid-1990s.\
- After the deaths, the account showed a wire of $282,000 (to Gwynfe) and subsequent unexplained withdrawals leaving small balances; SunTrust says the account closed in January 2003 with no funds and that records are no longer retained.\
- Plaintiffs (estate representative Trudel and son Ruslan) sued SunTrust and others in 2015 asserting multiple counts; the court previously dismissed most claims as time-barred, leaving only: (1) accounting; and (2) fraudulent concealment.\
- Discovery produced some bank statements, vendor responses (Iron Mountain and Viewpointe) showing no retrievable records for the account, and internal SunTrust materials (some redacted). Plaintiffs sought further discovery and depositions.\
- Both parties moved for summary judgment; Plaintiffs also requested relief under Rule 56(d) to delay ruling pending additional discovery and sought leave to amend but did not file a proposed amended pleading.\
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SunTrust owed a fiduciary duty entitling plaintiffs to an equitable accounting | Bank opened accounts for foreign, non-English-speaking customers and thus had "special circumstances" creating fiduciary duty and need for accounting | Bank-customer relationships are arm's-length; no evidence SunTrust undertook advisory/protective duties or exercised extensive control | No fiduciary duty; accounting claim fails; summary judgment for SunTrust granted |
| Whether plaintiffs' fraudulent-concealment claim (based on alleged failure to escheat funds to Florida) survives | Bank failed to escheat unclaimed funds (5-year rule) and thus concealed assets from beneficiaries; that conduct supports fraudulent concealment | The escheat-based misconduct occurred over 12 years before suit; statute of repose bars such claims; plaintiffs changed theories late | Claim time-barred by Florida 12-year statute of repose; summary judgment for SunTrust granted |
| Whether SunTrust’s alleged failure to follow its internal 20-year retention policy creates liability | Internal policy required 20-year retention for escheated/abandoned records; SunTrust kept only 7 years | Bank did not treat the account as escheated/abandoned; policy breach alone does not create a cause of action | Policy-violation theory rejected as legally insufficient to sustain fraudulent-concealment claim |
| Whether discovery deficiencies justify deferring summary judgment under Rule 56(d) | Plaintiffs need additional 30(b)(6) testimony, unredacted retention policies, and technical archives to show recoverable account data | Court had already authorized broad discovery; vendor responses show no retrievable records; additional discovery would not change legal outcome | Rule 56(d) denied; further discovery would not create material facts altering holdings; summary judgment affirmed for SunTrust |
Key Cases Cited
- Trudel v. SunTrust Bank, 223 F. Supp. 3d 71 (D.D.C. 2016) (prior opinion narrowing claims and discussing timeliness)\
- Barnett Bank of W. Fla. v. Hooper, 498 So.2d 923 (Fla. 1986) (banks and depositors generally have arm’s-length relationship; no fiduciary duty presumed)\
- Hess v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 175 So.3d 687 (Fla. 2015) (statute of repose in fraud/fraudulent concealment runs from defendant's last act or omission)\
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard)\
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (nonmovant must produce evidence to show genuine issue for trial)