# Federal Deposit Insurance v. Stahl

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · August 2, 1996 · 89 F.3d 1510

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415257

## Case

- **Full name:** FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Manager of the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation Resolution Fund, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. Angelique O. STAHL, Ralph F. Cheplak, Defendants-Appellees, Cross-Appellants, Ross P. Beckerman, W. George Allen, Defendants-Appellees, Ira C. Hatch, Jr., Allen E. Baer, Ronald M. Bergeron, Sr., Defendants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** August 2, 1996
- **Citations:** 89 F.3d 1510; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 19011; 1996 WL 403103
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Hatchett
- **Judges:** Hatchett, Black, Clark
- **Cited by:** 33 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415257

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that where a transcript is being offered to show personal knowledge of the alleged problems surrounding an individual’s employment, and not to ' establish the intrinsic truth of those respective problems, the transcript is not considered hearsay
- stating that where a transcript is offered to show knowledge of the alleged problems surrounding an individuals employment, and not to establish the intrinsic truth of those problems, the transcript is not hearsay
- holding directors must act with ordinary care under Florida statute before business judgment rule applies
- concluding that the district court erred by declining to revisit its earlier ruling on a legal standard because “the denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss was not a final judgment, [so] the decision regarding the standard of care was not the law of the case”
- applying Florida’s statute of limitations, which is very similar to Oklahoma’s, and holding that negligence action accrues when loan defaults, not when the loan is made

## Opinion text

HATCHETT, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
Although I agree with the law this opinion announces and the reasoning in the opinion, I respectfully dissent in part. I would grant Stahl and Cheplak a new trial because the pre-1987 Florida law on the standard of care for directors was at best confusing. This opinion announces a clear standard to govern directors in this circuit. I fully concur in this standard; but, neither the district court nor the parties had the benefit of this standard at the trial of this case. In light of the confu *1523 sion in our circuit law and the split in circuits, the district court followed the law of its district. Consequently, I would order a new trial for Stahl and Cheplak with this standard to be applied.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9415257. Public record. Not legal advice.