# William C. Davidson v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver for United Bank of Texas, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · February 22, 1995 · 44 F.3d 246

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9487664

## Case

- **Full name:** William C. DAVIDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION as Receiver for United Bank of Texas, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** February 22, 1995
- **Citations:** 44 F.3d 246; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 3467
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Head
- **Judges:** Garwood, Garza, Head
- **Cited by:** 28 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/9487664

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the objective of “reducing] the monetary ex *1029 posure of the federal deposit insurance fund” is insufficient to preempt Texas foreclosure laws
- holding that even the objective of “reduc[ing] the monetary exposure of the federal deposit insurance fund” is insufficient to preempt Texas foreclosure laws
- finding that FDIC could not prevail on the ground that there was a federal interest in “simply not depleting the deposit insurance fund”
- holding that transfer of note in default to FDIC triggered six-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2415(a)

## Opinion text

HEAD, District Judge,
dissenting:
Even though I think our opinion is correct under the law, plaintiff should be given an opportunity for remand. At the time Davidson bought the property, there may have been no indication in the Deed Records of Travis County, Texas, that the bank had failed and that the FDIC had succeeded to its interests on the Bird note and deed of trust. Without that notice in the record title, Davidson bought property without notice of the claim of another. If the government wants to take advantage of extended limitations, I see no reason why it cannot record its interest to protect third parties.
This issue was not tried below nor argued before us. If there is something we have overlooked, I would like Davidson to have his day in court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9487664. Public record. Not legal advice.