Betz

Betz v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Good Law
96 Daily Journal DAR 13171·99 F.3d 904·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 28063·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7917
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 30, 1996No. 95-55259California1,894 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Thompson, J.

Former directors of the failed HomeFed Bank, F.S.B. (the directors), appeal the dis *905 trict court’s summary judgment in favor of the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) in the directors’ action to require the RTC to treat their withheld directors’ fee accounts as deposits with the bank. The RTC determined, and the district court held, that the accounts were not “deposits” within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. § 1813 (l). We have jurisdiction over this timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

I

HomeFed Bank, a federal savings institution, entered into written contracts with each of the directors. Pursuant to these contracts, the bank withheld fees ordinarily paid to the directors for services rendered to the bank. 2 The contracts constituted a withheld fee plan (Plan) by which the directors deferred receipt of their fees in order to defer the payment of income taxes on those fees until they retired.

Under the terms of the Plan, HomeFed established “individual memorandum accounts” for each director and every month credited the directors’ accounts with their withheld fees plus interest accumulated on the existing balances in the accounts. The bank was…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.