By: Derek Hawkins//July 18, 2016//
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Case Name: FDIC et al v. Kenneth E. Hoffman, Jr.
Case No.: 15-3326; 15-3327
Officials: EASTERBROOK, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
Focus: Settlement Release
Settlement and release agreement did not free appellant from larger obligation
“The specific provisions in the Hoffman‐FDIC agreement refer to the $157,300 debt secured by mortgages on three Milan properties. A reasonable interpretation of what these specific provisions mean leaves no ambiguity. The contract states that the FDIC believes it is entitled, by the particular loan de‐ fault at issue, to foreclose on the three Milan properties. It states that the FDIC will accept, in lieu of foreclosure, the deeds to these three properties. And with the deeds in lieu of foreclosure, the Hoffmans’ $157,300 obligation is wiped out. On the specific language of this contract, therefore, the meaning is unequivocal: Hoffman’s $157,300 obligation is the loan forgiven.”
Affirmed