[fullwidth background_color=”” background_image=”” background_parallax=”none” enable_mobile=”no” parallax_speed=”0.3″ background_repeat=”no-repeat” background_position=”left top” video_url=”” video_aspect_ratio=”16:9″ video_webm=”” video_mp4=”” video_ogv=”” video_preview_image=”” overlay_color=”” overlay_opacity=”0.5″ video_mute=”yes” video_loop=”yes” fade=”no” border_size=”0px” border_color=”” border_style=”” padding_top=”20″ padding_bottom=”20″ padding_left=”0″ padding_right=”0″ hundred_percent=”no” equal_height_columns=”no” hide_on_mobile=”no” menu_anchor=”” class=”” id=””][title size=”1″ content_align=”left” style_type=”underline solid” sep_color=”#000000″ margin_top=”” margin_bottom=”” class=”” id=””]St. Cloud-based Stearns Bank is a defendant in a breaching a contract trial[/title][fusion_text]Tuesday, October 6th 2015
St. Cloud-based Stearns Bank is a defendant in a trial that was scheduled to begin this week but has been moved to December. The plaintiff accuses the bank of breaching a contract to fund a California real estate development. The trial will be held in federal court in California. Attorneys met Thursday to discuss final trial preparation, but the trial date was then moved to December 8th. It would be the second trial in the lawsuit filed by Citrus El Dorado against Stearns Bank. A California jury at the first trial found Stearns Bank liable for breach of contract and negligent interference in a business relationship and awarded Citrus $30 million. A complaint against the company also alleged fraud and intentional interference with a contract. The verdict was reduced by the trial judge to $16 million. Stearns Bank appealed the verdict, which was reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on a 2-1 vote and sent back to U.S. District Court for a new trial. The Ninth Circuit court reversed the jury’s verdict on the claim of negligent interference in a business relationship. The trial that was moved to December involves just the breach of contract claim.
[/fusion_text][/fullwidth]