Terminella case to be decided by judge ruling ! Developer waited too long to sue bankers individually, judge rules
Posted on Saturday, October 11, 2008
The legal battle between Little Rock-based Metropolitan National Bank and Fayetteville developer Tom Terminella will be heard by a judge, not a jury, a judge ruled Friday.
Terminella waited too long to sue two bankers individually, the judge also ruled.
Metropolitan Bank filed a foreclosure lawsuit against Terminella and his Grand Valley Ridge Development in October, 2007.
Terminella filed a counterclaim alleging that Metropolitan refused to fund his development loan for the 159-acre Grand Valley Ridge subdivision in Springdale in the fall of 2006. He claims the loan was current and well-secured at the time. The bank claims in its court filings that the foreclosure is proper and the bank treated Terminella fairly.
Terminella's request for his counter-claim to be heard before the bank's foreclosure lawsuit was denied Friday by 4 th Judicial Circuit Judge Kim Smith.
Smith cited the cleanup doctrine in ruling that the two cases will be heard at the same time so that the entire matter could be concluded in a bench trial. Because the initial foreclosure lawsuit does not require a jury trial, Te r minella's counterclaim does not require a jury trial.
The bank's attorney, Charles Trantham, argued that the individual claims against bank executives Doyle Rogers Sr. and Lunsford Bridges were filed Sept. 12, which does not allow them enough time to prepare for the trial set for Oct. 21. Both are already named in the counter claim in their capacities as bank executives, he said.
Trantham pointed out that Smith told attorneys last October that the case would go trial on Oct. 21, 2008, and he warned them against asking for delays. Trantham said the trial would take much longer if the bankers were added individually.
Terminella's attorney, James Penick, argued that since the trial would be before that it should not take longer than the week already scheduled for the case.
Smith ruled that allowing Terminella to add defendants this close to trial would be prejudicial and delay the proceedings.
Parties would not comment on the Friday's hearing, citing a gag order in the case.
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online
