certain specified "change in control events", MSB or TOB would pay plaintiff two years salary plus specified benefits. Hibyan, 812 F.Supp at 273. After his claim was disallowed by FDIC, plaintiff filed suit against FDIC in the United States District Court for the District of Maine, seeking relief in regard to the "change in control events" provision in his employment contract as well as in regard to a no compete clause in the contract. The Court granted FDIC's motion for summary judgement in regard to this second claim because plaintiff did not meet his "exhaustion requirement" with respect to it. Id. at 273. In the case at bar, though, the claim plaintiff brought before this Court is the same as the one it submitted to FDIC; the only question is whether plaintiff can seek a greater dollar amount here than it did at the administrative level. Hibyan does not shed light on that issue.
As plaintiff points out, FIRREA, unlike the FTCA, does not contain a provision which specifically limits the size of a district court claim to the dollar amount previously claimed at the administrative level. The question of whether or not FIRREA nevertheless does limit claims in such a way appears to be one of first impression both in this jurisdiction and in others. In order to decide this question, then, the Court will turn to the legislative history of FIRREA to determine how to best effect the purpose behind the Act.
As stated, supra, Congress created the administrative claims review process in order to enable FDIC to "expeditiously and fairly" dispose of the claims against failed institutions. H.R. Rep.No. 101-54(I), 101st Cong., 1st Sess. at 418-19, reprinted in 1989 U.S.C.C.A.N. 86, 214-15. In looking at the question before this Court in light of this Congressional goal, it becomes clear that the best interpretation of the word "claim" is the one which most encourages claimants to be as accurate as possible in regard to the amounts they seek before the FDIC. In that regard, FDIC's argument that plaintiff's interpretation would spawn "pro forma claims in nominal amounts" is unpersuasive, because claimants would be loath to file such perfunctory claims for fear that they would be granted. On the other hand, if FDIC's logic were accepted, claimants would, as plaintiff suggests, undoubtedly file excessive claims in order to protect themselves in the event that their claims failed.
The Court thus finds that plaintiff's interpretation of the word "claim" as found in FIRREA is correct, because it would neither put pressure on claimants to overstate their claims nor would it encourage them to understate claims. Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgement must therefore be denied, because FIRREA does not limit the dollar amount of plaintiff's district court claim to that which plaintiff earlier sought in its claim before the FDIC.
FIRREA neither explicitly nor implicitly commands that a party must limit the amount it seeks in an otherwise properly filed district court claim to the amount it sought in its previously filed claim before the FDIC. Moreover, the congressional goal in enacting FIRREA of enabling FDIC to expeditiously and fairly dispose of the claims against failed institutions would not be furthered by imposing such a limitation on claimants.
Therefore, it is by the Court this 10th day of May, 1993
ORDERED, that the defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgement be denied.
Thomas A. Flannery
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE