United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 95-30621.
Sidney R. WILHITE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
H.I. SCHENDLE; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Defendants-Appellees,
and
James W. Beaver; James M. Rasbery, Defendants.
Aug. 28, 1996.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
Before WISDOM, EMILIO M. GARZA and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
WISDOM, Circuit Judge:
The plaintiff-appellant, Sidney Wilhite, appeals the dismissal of his suit against
defendant-appellee, H.I. Schendle, for contribution to a Settlement Agreement made with the
Resolution Trust Corporation ("RTC"), the statutory predecessor to defendant-appellee, the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"). Wilhite also appeals the dismissal of his cause of action
against the FDIC for the return of a portion of his settlement payment. For the reasons that follow,
we AFFIRM the dismissal of the case against both defendants.
I. BACKGROUND
Sidney Wilhite and H.I. Schendle are both former directors of the Deposit Trust Savings Bank
of Monroe, Louisiana ("the Bank"). In 1990, the United States Office of Thrift Supervision closed
the Bank and appointed the RTC as receiver. The RTC investigated the cause of the Bank's failure,
and eventually made a demand for compensation from the Bank's former officers and directors.
Following a period of negotiations, the RTC reached a settlement agreement with seven of
the former directors and officers o f the Bank, including Schendle and Wilhite ("the Settlement
Agreement"). The Settlement Agreement pro vided for a payment by the officers and directors of
$750,000 to the RTC in exchange for their discharge from any claims arising from the Bank's trading
practices. Throughout the negotiation process, Schendle denied liability, and stated that he would
refuse to pay any settlement amount. Nonetheless, Schendle, Wilhite, and the other five directors and
officers signed the Settlement Agreement with the RTC.
Wilhite paid the entire $750,000 to the RTC. He then made arrangements with three of the
six remaining directors to receive compensation for their portions of the settlement amount. After
failing to reach agreements with the last three directors, Wilhite filed this suit on June 3, 1993. He
later dismissed one of those defendants to maintain federal diversit y jurisdiction, and obtained a
default judgment against a second defendant, leaving Schendle as the only remaining defendant. After
an unsuccessful attempt to obtain summary judgment against Schendle, Wilhite amended his
complaint and added the RTC as defendant to the suit, seeking the return of three-sevenths of the
Settlement proceeds.
The district court heard testimony on the case, and issued a memorandum ruling denying
recovery to Wilhite and dismissing his suit with prejudice. Wilhite filed a timely notice of appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
Wilhite contends that Schendle should be required to contribute under any of several theories
of Louisiana Law, including: applying of the laws of solidary liability to the Settlement Agreement;
subrogation; "unjust enrichment;" and "payment of a thing not due." Alternatively, Wilhite maintains
that the FDIC should be required to reimburse him under the theory of "payment of a thing not due."
We address each theory of law in turn, reviewing the district court's conclusions of law de novo, and
its factual findings for clear error.1
A. The Nature of the Directors' and Officers' Obligation
Wilhite's first theory of recovery against Schendle is that the Settlement Agreement
alternatively created either a "solidary" obligation or a "joint and indivisible" obligation among the
Bank's former director's and officers. Under Lo uisiana law, either of these types of obligations is
enforced under the rules governing solidary liability, and would give Wilhite a right of contribution
1
Perlman v. Pioneer Ltd. Partnership, 918 F.2d 1244 (5th Cir.1990).
against Schendle.2
In its ruling, the district court found that the Settlement Agreement created neither of these
types of obligations, but instead created a "joint and divisible" obligation with no right of contribution.
We agree.
In order to have a solidary obligation under Louisiana law, the agreement must demonstrate
an express, written intent for the parties to have such an obligation.3 Although the words "in solido"
or "solidary" are not necessarily required, there may be no doubt as to the parties' intention on this
matter.4 Applying this strict standard, the Louisiana Supreme Court has determined that while the
phrase "we promise to pay" is insufficient to create a solidary obligation, a reference to "our promise
to pay" is sufficient to create one.5
Wilhite contends that the language of the Settlement Agreement in this case is more akin to
the latter phrase, because the Agreement refers to the Bank's directors and officers as a group, and
also refers to only one "payment" and one "release." We disagree. The portions of the Settlement
Agreement cited by Wilhite do not amount to an express stipulation of solidary liability. In order to
create solidary liability, Louisiana law requires more than a solidary "tenor" to an agreement.6
Furthermore, paragraph two of the Settlement Agreement specifically provides that:
"The former officers and directors agree to pay, and hereby pay, and the RTC agrees to
receive and hereby acknowledges receipt and sufficiency of the sum of $750,000.00 cash (the
"Settlement Proceeds").
If one substitutes the word "we" for "the former officers and directors," it is clear that this language
is analogous to the phrase "we promise to pay," and creates a joint obligation among the parties.7
2
La.Civ.Code Ann. arts. 1789, 1790.
3
La.Civ.Code Ann. art. 1796; Moreland v. Green, 501 So.2d 975, 978 (La.App. 2d Cir.), writ
denied, 504 So.2d 880 (La.1987).
4
Id.
5
Johnson v. Jones-Journet, 320 So.2d 533, 536 (La.1975).
6
USX Corp. v. Tanenbaum, 868 F.2d 1455 (5th Cir.1989).
7
Johnson, 320 So.2d at 536.
Under Louisiana law, such a joint obligation may be either "divisible," or "indivisible,"
depending on the nature of the object of performance and the intention of the parties. The obligation
is "divisible" if the object of performance is susceptible of division.8 It is "indivisible" if the object of
performance is incapable of division or if the parties intend to make an otherwise divisible
performance indivisible.9 In this case, the directors' and officers' obligation under the Settlement
Agreement was a financial payment to one entity. We agree with the district court that by nature,
such a monetary payment is susceptible of division. Wilhite maintains, however, that the Settlement
Agreement demonstrates an intent to make the financial obligation "indivisible" among the directors
and officers.
We look to the Settlement Agreement as a whole to determine the intent of the parties on
this issue.10 As previously discussed, paragraph two demonstrates an intent to avoid a solidary
obligation. Wilhite argues, however, that other provisions in the Settlement Agreement show the
intent to make the joint obligation "indivisible." He first relies on the language of paragraphs three
and four, which read as follows:
"3. In consideration of the payment of the Settlement Proceeds, the RTC does hereby release
and discharge the former officers and directors ..."
"4. In consideration of the release granted herein above by the RTC, the former officers and
directors hereby release and discharge the RTC in all its various capacities...."
According to Wilhite, t his language makes it clear that only one performance (the "Settlement
Proceeds") is expected by the RTC, and in return only one performance (a general "release" of
liability) is given by the RTC. Wilhite maintains that the obligation must therefore be "indivisible".
In effect, he argues that one performance by law cannot be made up of divisible parts. This argument
is weak and somewhat circular. Although t he "Settlement Proceeds" is a singular mass, the
agreement to pay in paragraph two provides that sum will be paid by the plural "officers and
directors." Thus, language regarding a "singular" performance still offers no insight into whether the
8
La.Civ.Code Ann. art. 1815.
9
Id.
10
Stockstill v. Byrd, 132 La. 404, 61 So. 446 (La.1913).
parties responsible for that performance intended it to be divisible. Further, the nature of the return
obligation on behalf of the RTC is on its face capable of division. The singular "release" of liability
given to the seven directors is clearly capable of division into seven individual releases of liability.
Thus, these provisions do not support Wilhite's argument.
Wilhite also argues that paragraph six of the Settlement Agreement evidences the necessary
intent. That provision reads as follows:
"6. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted as a bar to any rights of the former officers
or directors to indemnification or contribution from any other former officer or director as
a consequence of their respective payments to the RTC in connection with this Agreement,
nor shall it be construed as an expansion of any rights which may exist in the absence of this
Agreement."
Wilhite insists that this clause leads to the conclusion that the parties intended to make the obligation
"indivisible." He contends that this clause creates the right to seek indemnification or contribution
from the other former directors and officers signing the Settlement Agreement. We disagree. The
language, "nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted as a bar to any rights ... to indemnification
or contribution as a consequence of their respective payments to the RTC ..." does not indicate that
it is creating new rights within the Agreement. Instead, the passive language leads us to conclude
that the paragraph merely preserves rights that may exist outside of the Settlement Agreement. This
conclusion is bolstered by the additional language, "nor shall [the Agreement] be construed as an
expansion of any rights which may exist in the absence of this Agreement." That language specifically
indicates that paragraph six does not create new rights of contribution.
In sum, there is no evidence that the directors and officers intended their obligation to the
RTC to be indivisible. The district court correctly concluded that the Settlement Agreement created
a "joint and divisible" obligation for the Bank's directors and officers, and that there is therefore no
right of contribution among them.
B. Subrogation Rights between Wilhite and Schendle
As an alternative theory of recovery, Wilhite argues that if the obligation is "joint and
divisible," Wilhite should still be able to recover through the theory of subrogation, or the substitution
of one person for the rights of another. Under Lo uisiana law, subrogation may occur either by
"conventional" or "legal" means.11 "Conventional" subrogation occurs when an obligee receives
performance from a third person and in express terms subrogates that person to the ri ghts of the
obligee, even without the obligor's consent.12 "Legal" subrogation takes place by operation of law
in favor of an obligor who pays a debt he owes with others and who has recourse against those others
as a result of the payment.13
1. Conventional Subrogation.
The district court held that because Wilhite was also an obligor to the RTC, and had already
extinguished the debt to the RTC, he could not seek "conventional" subrogation against Schendle.
The court based its conclusion on Louisiana Civil Code article 1854, which provides that
"performance by the obligor extinguishes the obligation." This interpretation is correct. Wilhite and
Schendle were liable for the same "obligation," although in divisible portions. As such, article 1854
applies. Because Wilhite was an obligor, and paid the obligation, he cannot now be a third party to
that same obligation, and seek subrogation from another obligor.
In addition, under Louisiana law, third party subrogation can not arise unless "so provided
by law or by agreement".14 Wilhite argues that paragraph six provides the necessary authorization
to pursue conventional subrogation. As discussed above, however, paragraph six is merely meant
to preserve pre-existing rights, not to create new ones. Thus, Wilhite has no right to conventional
subrogation against Schendle.
2. Legal Subrogation.
The five instances in which "legal" subrogation may occur are specifically listed in
La.Civ.Code art. 1829. The only instance that is applicable to this case is the third one:
"[Subrogation takes place by operation of law] in favor of an obligor who pays a debt he
owes with others or for others and who has recourse against the others as a result of the
payment."
11
La.Civ.Code Ann. art. 1825.
12
La.Civ.Code Ann. art. 1827.
13
La.Civ.Code Ann. art. 1829.
14
La.Civ.Code Ann. art. 1855.
The district court found that this section did not apply because the Settlement Agreement did not
include a right to contribution among the directors and officers, and therefore the required "recourse
against the others" was absent. For the reasons previously discussed, we agree with the district
court's interpretation of the Settlement Agreement.
Furthermore, we find that regardless of the content of the Settlement Agreement, legal
subrogation would not apply to this case. Under Louisiana law, where there is no solidary liability,
any right to contribution must arise out of the rights of the common creditor.15 In this case, the RTC
did not subrogate its rights against the non-paying signatories to the only paying signatory, Wilhite.
Therefore, Wilhite could have no right of contribution or subrogation against his co-debtors. To find
otherwise would allow one party to transform a joint and divisible obligation into a solidary obligation
by the mere application of the legal subrogation statute. This int erpretation would make the
distinction between divisible and indivisible meaningless. Therefore, we find t hat Wilhite has no
subrogation rights against Schendle.
C. "Unjust Enrichment"
Wilhite's third theory of recovery against Schendle is that of "unjust enrichment." As
described by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Minyard v. Curtis Products, Inc.,16 an individual can
recover from another under this theory if he proves: 1) the enrichment of the other part y; 2) an
impoverishment; 3) a connection between the enrichment and the impoverishment; 4) an absence
of cause for the enrichment and impoverishment; and 5) the lack of any other remedy at law.17
In this case, the district court made a finding of fact, based on Wilhite's trial testimony, that
Wilhite would have paid the full $750,000.00 to the RTC even if Schendle was not a party to the
compromise. This finding of fact is not clearly erroneous, particularly since it is based on Wilhite's
personal trial testimony and Wilhite has offered no evidence tending to show that his statements were
misinterpreted.
15
Perkins v. Scaffolding Rental & Erection, Inc., 568 So.2d 549 (La.1990).
16
205 So.2d 422, 432 (La.1967).
17
Id.
Based on its finding of fact, the district court concluded that the theory of "unjust enrichment"
did not apply to this case because Wilhite had not suffered an "impoverishment," and because there
was no connection between Schendle's "enrichment" and Wilhite's "impoverishment". We find no
error in this analysis.
D. "Payment of a Thing Not Due"
Finally, Wilhite contends that both Schendle and the FDIC should be held liable under the
theory of "payment of a thing not due." This cause of action is based on Louisiana Civil Code article
2310, which provides:
"He who, through mistake has paid the debt of another to whom he believed himself indebted,
has a claim to restitution from the creditor.
"This right ceases, if, in consequence of the payment, the creditor has destroyed or parted
with his title; but the reco urse still remains open to the person paying as against the true
debtor."
This cause of action is inapplicable to Wilhite's claim against Schendle. The district court made a
finding of fact that Wilhite did not "believe himself to be indebted" to the RTC for Schendle's share,
and therefore held that article 2310 is inapplicable to Wilhite's claim against Schendle.
This factual finding is not clearly erroneous. Wilhite has consistently testified that, at the time
he entered into the Settlement Agreement, he believed he had a right to recover from the other
signatories. This testimony is directly contrary to the Article 2310 requirement that Wilhite "believe
himself indebted" for Schendle's share. As such, the district court correctly dismissed Wilhite's claim
against Schendle under this provision.
In addition, Wilhite does not have a claim against the FDIC. Louisiana courts have
consistently interpreted the language of Article 2310 to prohibit the party making a mistaken payment
from seeking restitution from the creditor-recipient if the creditor has lost the right to proceed against
the true debtor.18 This "destroyed title" can occur if the creditor has already completed its
18
Premium Finance Specialists, Inc. v. International Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 938 F.2d 50 (5th
Cir.1991); A.V. Smith Const. Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 422 So.2d 697 (La.App. 3d
Cir.1982).
performance under the contract as a result of the actions of the mistaken party,19 or if the mistaken
party has let his own claim against the true creditor lapse. 20 In this case, because of Wilhite's
payment, the RTC released Mr. Schendle from any liability arising out of his management of the bank.
Because of this release, the FDIC no longer "has title" to the alleged overpayment made by Wilhite.
Therefore, Wilhite cannot seek reimbursement under Article 2310.
We note that Wilhite's claim against the FDIC also fails because his attack on the Settlement
Agreement is based on an error of law. Under the Louisiana Civil Code Article 3078, a transaction
or compromise "cannot be attacked on account of any error of law."21 The district court made a
specific finding of fact that, at the time Wilhite entered into the Settlement Agreement, he erroneously
believed he had a right to recover from the other signatories. We find no error in this factual finding,
and agree that Wilhite's error consti tutes an "error of law" such that he cannot now attack the
transaction.
Wilhite attempts to distinguish his particular mistake by arguing that his error was made in
the course of complying with the agreement, rather than an error made in the creation of the
agreement itself. As support for his theory, he cites the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision in Brown
v. Drillers, Inc.,22 which stated that Article 3078 was intended to apply to situations in which a party
is seeking rescission of a compromise, and not to situations in which the construction of the
compromise is being challenged.23
In Brown, a deceased worker's widow brought a wrongful death action which the defendants
19
Premium Finance, 938 F.2d 50 (where the premiums for an insurance policy were mistakenly
paid twice, but insurer had completed its "performance" of keeping insurance policy in effect and
paying claims on it, the insurer sufficiently "parted with its title" to remove the right to
restitution).
20
A.V. Smith, 422 So.2d 697 (contractor who mistakenly reimbursed school board for damage
done to school building by a subcontractor may have lost right to seek reimbursement from school
board by allowing claim against subcontractor to prescribe).
21
La.Civ.Code Ann. art. 3078; Campbell v. Roman Catholic Church, 490 So.2d 798 (La.App.
3d Cir.), writ denied, 494 So.2d 1175 (La.1986).
22
630 So.2d 741, 755 (La.1994).
23
Id.
sought to set aside based on an earlier release of liability signed by the widow and the deceased before
the worker died.24 The court found that the parties had not clearly contemplated that the release
would cover rights accruing after the future death of the worker, and that therefore the widow could
not have intended to release that claim as well.25 Thus, Brown was not seeking to rescind the earlier
compromise, but challenged the intended scope of that compromise.26 In this situation, the court held
that Article 3078 did not apply.27
Wilhite argues, that like the widow in Brown, he does not wish to set aside the Settlement
Agreement, but merely wishes to have it enforced "according to its terms." The two cases are not
particularly analogous, however. The distinction made by the Supreme Court is that Mrs. Brown's
mistake was not an "error in law," in that she and her husband did not misunderstand what rights
Louisiana law gave her at the time of her husband's injury. The error was one of "construction," in
that she did not understand that the scope of the release was also intended to apply to rights she might
accrue in the future, after the intervening event of her husband's death. In contrast, the present
agreement is a true "error of law," in that Mr. Wilhite did not misunderstand the scope of the
Settlement Agreement. Wilhite understood that seven directors, including himself, would be released
from liability to the RTC for acts arising out of their management of the Bank, if the RTC received
a total of $750,000 from the seven men. What Wilhite misunderst ood was the nature of his legal
rights under Agreement. Thus, Brown does not apply to this case.
As further support for his argument, Wilhite notes that all the cases applying Article 3078
address situations in which the settling party agreed to the settlement based on a mistaken belief that
that party was liable for the claim being compromised.28 Of course, in this case, Wilhite does not
24
Id.
25
Id.
26
Id.
27
Id.
28
See Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Landry, 578 So.2d 537 (La.App. 3d Cir.1991) (insurer
made error of law in deciding that mother of decedent had paramount rights over the decedent's
illegitimate child and could not set aside compromise made with mother); Campbell, 490 So.2d
challenge his actual liability to the RTC. Instead, Wilhite seeks recovery because he agreed to the
Settlement Agreement on the mistaken belief that the other directors were liable for the claim
compromised. The distinction between this situation and that of the other cases applying Article 3078
is of no consequence. The language of the code article does not distinguish between specific types
of "error in law," and nothing in the case precedent indicates that there should be such a distinction.
Finally, we note that even if Wilhite's mistake was not an "error of law," but one of fact, the
"factual" error was unilateral, and caused by the carelessness of Wilhite's own attorneys and advisors.
Under Louisiana law, a compromise cannot be attacked or set aside based upon a unilateral error of
fact resulting from the party's own carelessness.29 Therefore, we find that Wilhite cannot seek
recovery from the FDIC due to his misunderstanding of the Settlement Agreement with the RTC.
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Wilhite's suit against Schendle and the FDIC.
800 (a party unaware of forced heirship rights in Louisiana who settles a claim agreeing not to
contest her mother's will cannot attack the compromise).
29
Sellers v. Corne, Sellers and Associates, Inc., 649 So.2d 1181 (La.App. 3d Cir.1995).