FROM LAUREL CIRCUIT COURT HONORABLE THOMAS L. JENSEN, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 12-CI-00962
FOR APPELLANT: Jason E. Williams London, Kentucky.
FOR APPELLEE: Wesley R. Tipton Corbin, Kentucky.
BEFORE: CLAYTON, JONES, AND NICKELL, JUDGES.
Appellant, Robert Mark Scott ("Scott"), appeals
from the March 16, 2015, order of the Laurel County Circuit
Court. In that order, the circuit court granted a motion for
judgment on the pleadings made by the Appellee, Forcht Bank,
N.A. ("Forcht Bank"). For the reasons more fully
explained below, we AFFIRM.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
September 2008, Scott approached Forcht Bank to obtain
financing for the purchase of two undeveloped lots (Lot #23
and Lot #26) located in Cedar Creek Subdivision in Laurel
County, Kentucky, and for the cost of building a rental home
on one of the lots. According to Scott, the purpose of
purchasing Lot #23 and Lot #26 was to construct a rental
property, first on Lot #26, then use the proceeds from the
rental property and the rental home itself, as collateral, to
obtain a second loan from Forcht Bank to build a rental
property on Lot #23. According to Scott, Forcht Bank was
fully aware of his plans.
March 5, 2013, Scott met with Chris Jasper
("Jasper"), a loan officer with Forcht Bank. Scott
indicated that he approached Jasper with a written plan for
the two lots. Scott maintains that before agreeing to the
loan terms, he requested assurance from Forcht Bank that he
would be able to build on the second lot in accordance with
this plans. Scott stated that Jasper assured him that he
would be able to build on Lot #23 and that Jasper provided
him a form, which Scott filled out explaining why he was
buying Lot #23. A copy of this form was never produced during
this action. Jasper only recalled reviewing Scott's
handwritten construction and post-construction plans. He did
not recall Scott stating that he would not accept the loan
unless Forcht Bank agreed to a second, later loan for the
construction of a rental home on Lot #23.
September 2008, Scott's loan application was approved by
Forcht Bank. In total, Forcht Bank loaned Scott $121, 952.59
for the purchase price of Lot #23 and Lot #26 (the price for
each lot was $11, 500.00) and the cost of building a rental
home on Lot #26. Later in 2008, Jasper was dismissed by
Forcht Bank. By the fall of 2008 Mike Sharp
("Sharp") was hired by Forcht Bank as its Market
March 2009, Scott completed construction of the rental
property on Lot #26, at which time he approached Forcht Bank
and met with Sharp for the purpose of obtaining a loan to
build another rental home on the second lot (Lot #23). Scott
was denied the second loan from Forcht Bank and, according to
him, Sharp asked Scott to sell the property on Lot #26 rather
than renting it out as he had originally planned. Scott
attempted to sell the home, but it never sold.
August 2009, due to depleted funds from paying the mortgage
out of pocket, Scott rented the property on Lot #26 for $1,
200.00 a month. According to Scott, Sharp never informed him
during their March 2009 meeting that Forcht Bank would not
make the second loan. Scott indicated that had Sharp notified
him of this, he would have never attempted to sell the home
and would have immediately rented it. Sharp indicated the
denial of the second loan could likely be attributed to a
change in Forcht Bank's policy, but no documentation of
this change was ever produced. Scott was never able to obtain
financing from Forcht Bank or any another financial
institution to build a second rental property on Lot #23.
Scott filed suit against Forcht Bank for breach of contract,
breach of promise, promissory estoppel, detrimental reliance,
and various emotional damages. Specifically, Scott alleged
that he had relied to his detriment on the alleged promise
that Forcht Bank would make a second loan to him so that he
could construct a rental home on Lot #23. Scott also alleged
that Forcht Bank's failure to make an additional loan to
him was a breach of its fiduciary duty.
Bank filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. On March
16, 2015, the trial court granted Forcht Bank's Motion
for Judgment on the ...