XML 39 R25.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v2.4.1.9
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES
12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

NOTE 18 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES

Commitments

The Bank has entered into an agreement pursuant to which a third party is to provide the Bank with account processing services and other miscellaneous services. Under the agreement, the Bank is obligated to pay monthly processing fees through August 5, 2016. In the event the Bank chooses to cancel the agreement prior to the end of the contract term a lump sum termination fee will have to be paid. The fee shall be calculated as the average monthly billing, exclusive of pass through costs for the past twelve months, multiplied by the number of months and any portion of a month remaining in the contract term plus the total of any Promotional or monthly Allowances (as applicable), or discounted monthly fees, which were provided to the Bank for the affected processing services in consideration of the fulfillment of the entire term of the affected Processing Services, multiplied by the number of months the Bank was awarded each of those allowance(s) for; plus one half (1/2) of any Migration Allowance or Installation Allowance, as defined in the agreement.

Salisbury leases facilities and equipment under operating leases that expire at various dates through 2023. The leases have varying renewal options, generally require a fixed annual rent, and provide that real estate taxes, insurance, and maintenance are to be paid by Salisbury. Rent expense totaled $147,000, $85,000 and $97,000 for 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively.

Future minimum lease payments at December 31, 2014 are as follows:

Future minimum lease payments  (in thousands)  
 2015   $235 
 2016    207 
 2017    166 
 2018    93 
 2019    79 
 2020    82 
 2021    28 
 2022    28 
 2023    16 
     $934 

Salisbury leases a facility under a capital lease that expires in 2029 with an option to terminate the lease in 2018. The lease has varying renewal options, requires a fixed annual rent, and provides that real estate taxes, insurance, and maintenance are to be paid by Salisbury. The following is a schedule by years of future minimum lease payments under the capital lease with the present value of the net minimum lease payments as of December 31, 2014.

Future minimum lease payments  (in thousands)  
 2015   $72 
 2016    72 
 2017    72 
 2018    72 
 2019    84 
 Thereafter    780 
 Total minimum lease payments1,152 
 Less amount representing interest728 
     $424 

Contingent Liabilities

As previously disclosed, the Bank, individually and in its capacity as a former Co-Trustee of the Erling C. Christophersen Revocable Trust (the “Trust”), was named as a defendant in litigation filed in the Connecticut Complex Litigation Docket in Stamford, captioned John Christophersen v. Erling Christophersen, et al., X08-CV-08-5009597S (the “First Action”).  The Bank also was a counterclaim-defendant in related mortgage foreclosure litigation in the Connecticut Complex Litigation Docket in Stamford, captioned Salisbury Bank and Trust Company v. Erling C. Christophersen, et al., X08-CV-10-6005847-S (the “Foreclosure Action,” together with the First Action, the “Actions”).  The other parties to the Actions were John R. Christophersen; Erling C. Christophersen, individually and as Co-Trustee of the Trust; Bonnie Christophersen and Elena Dreiske, individually and as Co-Trustees of the Mildred B. Blount Testamentary Trust; People’s United Bank; Law Offices of Gary Oberst, P.C.; Rhoda Rudnick; and Hinckley Allen & Snyder LLP.

The Actions involved a dispute over title to certain real property located in Westport, Connecticut that was conveyed by Erling Christophersen, as grantor, to the Trust on or about August 8, 2007.  Subsequent to this conveyance, the Bank loaned $3,387,000 to the Trust, which was secured by a commercial mortgage in favor of the Bank on the Westport property.  This mortgage is the subject of the Foreclosure Action brought by the Bank.

As previously disclosed, John R. Christophersen claimed an interest in the Westport real property transferred to the Trust and sought to quiet title to the property and to recover money damages from the defendants for the alleged wrongful divestiture of his claimed interest in the property.

On June 25, 2012, the Bank and John R. Christophersen entered into a Settlement Agreement, which resolved all differences between John R. Christophersen and the Bank and resulted in the withdrawal (with prejudice) of the claims made by John R. Christophersen.  All claims against the Bank have been withdrawn and the Bank is no longer a defendant or counterclaim defendant in any litigation involving the Actions.  As an additional consequence of the Settlement Agreement, Bonnie Christophersen, Elena Dreiske and People’s United Bank are no longer parties to any of the litigation referenced above. 

On July 27, 2012, Erling Christophersen filed a Motion to Restore the First Action, and on October 15, 2012 filed a Motion to Stay the Foreclosure Action pending resolution of the Motion to Restore. The Bank opposed both motions. On February 1, 2013, the Court issued orders denying both motions. On February 14, 2013, Erling Christophersen appealed the orders denying his Motion to Restore the First Action, and Motion to Stay the Foreclosure Action. 

The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the Foreclosure Action in May 2013, and later denied Erling Christophersen’s motion for reconsideration of its decision.

The Bank proceeded in its Foreclosure Action against Erling Christophersen.  Erling Christophersen asserted two special defenses and set-off claims alleging (1) that the Bank failed to defend the title claims against the properties, and (2) that the Bank took certain trustee fees without approval. The Bank moved to strike the special defenses and set off claims. In a decision issued on November 6, 2013, the Court granted the motion to strike as to the second special defense and set off, but denied the motion as to the first special defense and set off. Trial began on February 4, 2014, and concluded on February 14, 2014.

In a decision issued on June 2, 2014, the Court dismissed Erling Christophersen’s special defense, and made findings as to the amount of the debt owed by Erling Christophersen and the value of the property, reserving judgment on whether to order a strict foreclosure or foreclosure by sale pending a hearing on the amount of attorneys’ fees accrued, and the debt accrued since the commencement of the trial.  That hearing was held on July 29, 2014.  On July 25, 2014, Erling Christophersen moved to disqualify the Bank’s counsel, seeking, in part, the remedy of a new trial.  The Court denied that motion in a decision dated July 30, 2014.  On August 5, 2014, the Court issued a Judgment of Strict Foreclosure (the “Judgment”) in favor of the Bank and set September 16, 2014 as the Law Day, which is the final date fixed by the Court on which the debtor can pay off the debt or redeem the real property, with subsequent dates for subsequent encumbrances in inverse order of priority.  

On September 15, 2014, Christophersen moved to open the Judgment, which motion was denied by order of the Court dated September 30, 2014.  On October 3, 2014, Christophersen filed an Appeal of the Judgment and of the denial of his motion to reopen.   Salisbury Bank moved to dismiss the Appeal on October 24, 2014, on grounds that Christophersen cannot represent the Trust as he is not an attorney, and that Christophersen in his individual capacity does not have any interest in this appeal.  On December 17, 2014, the motion was granted in part and dismissed in part, but the decision is moot because counsel submitted an appearance on behalf of the Trust on December 29, 2014. On January 20, 2015, Christophersen filed a motion for reconsideration, which motion was denied by order of the Appellate Court on February 10, 2015. After a pre-argument conference, which is scheduled for April 10, 2015, the parties will submit briefs to the court.  The court will then schedule oral arguments and render a decision thereafter.