Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Radiance Capital Receivables Eighteen, LLC v. Concannon

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Central Division

February 6, 2017

RADIANCE CAPITAL RECEIVABLES EIGHTEEN, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
MATTHEW JEROME CONCANNON, Defendant.

          ORDER

          NANETTE K. LAUGHREY United States District Judge

         In this lawsuit, Plaintiff Radiance Capital Receivables Eighteen, LLC seeks payment of the debt of a non-party, from Defendant Matthew Concannon, an alleged guarantor of the debt. Concannon moves to dismiss, arguing that the pleadings are too conclusory to demonstrate standing and fail to state a claim, and that he has defenses. Doc. 4. The motion is denied.

         I. Facts [[1]]

         Providence Farms, LLC took out loans from Premier Bank and executed two Promissory Notes that were assignable according to their express language. At the same time, Concannon executed a written Guaranty covering “payment and performance” of every current or future debt Providence Farms owes to Premier Bank, including principal, interest, and collection costs. Doc. 1-4, p. 1. The Guaranty states that it was intended “to induce” Premier Bank to make the loans, was “absolute and unconditional, ” and was assignable without notice to Concannon. Id., pp. 1 and 3. The Notes matured in January 2010, but Providence Farms failed to pay the principal and interest due. As addressed in more detail below, the Notes were allegedly assigned twice: the first time to CADC/RADC Venture 2011-1, LLC, which sued in state court to recover the amounts due on the Notes, and the second time to Radiance Capital.

         Specifically, in October 2010, Premier Bank was shut down and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation was appointed as receiver. In August 2011, the FDIC executed Allonges to the Notes, providing for their payment to the order of CADC, “without recourse and without representation or warranty…of any kind or nature whatsoever.” See CADC/RADC Venture 2011-1, LLC v. Providence Farms, LLC, no. 13BA-CV01366, Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri (Verified Stipulation of Facts by Providence Farms, LLC, filed on 9/24/2014).[2]Radiance Capital pleads that CADC is a “successor-by-assignment” from the FDIC. Doc. 1, p. 2, ¶ 5.

         In April 2013, CADC sued Providence Farms, Concannon, and another guarantor in state court. The state court entered a consent judgment in September 2014 in favor of CADC and against Providence Farms for the amounts still due under the Notes, plus interest, and dismissed the claims against Providence Farms with prejudice.[3]

         In May 2016, CADC and Radiance Capital executed a Bill of Sale, as Seller and Buyer, respectively. Doc. 1-3. The document states that pursuant to the parties' Loan Sale Agreement, CADC:

[D]oes hereby sell, assign and convey to Buyer, its successors and assigns, all right, title and interest of Seller in and to those certain loans, judgments or evidences of debt described in Schedule “A” attached hereto and made part hereof, including assignment of all Loan Documents, ….

Id., p. 1 (emphasis in original). The Bill of Sale also states that it was executed “without recourse, ” “representation or warranty of any kind.” Id. The second page of the document contains a short table:

SFG-106

101900-001-DFJ

PROVIDENCE FARMS LLC

CADC/RADC VENTURE 2011-1, LLC

Id., p. 2. Radiance Capital pleads that it is a “successor-by-assignment” from CADC. Doc. 1, p. 2, ¶ 5.

         Radiance Capital notified Concannon of the default and demanded payment of all amounts due under the Notes, Guaranty, and judgment, but Concannon has failed to pay. Therefore, Radiance alleges, Concannon has breached the Guaranty.

         II. Discussion

         Concannon argues that the Complaint should be dismissed because Radiance Capital's allegations with respect to standing and the FDIC-to-CADC assignment are legal conclusions and thus do not satisfy the Iqbal and Twombly pleading standards[4], and that Radiance Capital fails to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.