Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State Ex Rel. Farm Credit Bank v. District Court of the Third Judicial District

Montana Supreme Court

Decided August 12, 1994No. 92-480Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Weber

In order to clarify my dissent, I will address the issues in a different order than in the majority opinion.

II (as listed in majority opinion)

Can an allegation that a Farm Credit Bank failed to comply with the restructure provisions of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 provide an affirmative defense to a foreclosure action by that Bank?

The Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (Act) contains an extensive array of procedures which both lenders and farmers must follow. It is true that the Act neither specifically requires nor denies judicial review of a restructuring decision by a lender. That is…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Karahalios v. National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1263Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Harper v. Federal Land Bank of SpokaneCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
  4. In Re the Adoption of D. J. V.Montana Supreme Court · 1990
  5. Berglund & Berglund, Inc. v. Contributions Bureau, Unemployment Insurance Division, Montana State Department of Labor & IndustryMontana Supreme Court · 1990

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API