Gary Wooten purchased property before marrying Iracy Wooten. Gary subsequently executed a deed of trust to secure a loan. Thereafter, Gary conveyed the property to himself and Iracy as tenants by the entirety. Approximately two weeks later, the lender recorded the deed of trust executed solely by Gary. Five years later, the lender filed suit against Gary and Iracy seeking a judicial reformation of the deed of trust to include Iracy as grantor or to declare her interest in the property to be encumbered by the deed of trust. Iracy responded that she knew nothing of the deed of trust or the loan and first learned of them during divorce proceedings with Gary. Meanwhile, a final divorce decree was entered ordering that the property be sold and any remaining proceeds be divided equally between the parties. In the lender’s proceeding, the lender argued that Iracy was judicially estopped from denying that her interest was subject to Gary’s deed of trust and that the divorce decree justified this conclusion. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the lender. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel based solely upon the divorce decree. Remanded. View "Wooten v. Bank of Am., N.A." on Justia Law

The Condominium Association of La Mer Estates filed a complaint to quiet title to the condominium unit. The Association served Bank of New York Mellon, which was assigned the mortgage securing the property. The Association obtained a default final judgment and quieted title against the Bank. The Bank later moved to vacate the quiet title judgment on grounds that it was void because the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The trial court granted the motion. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, ruling that, although the complaint failed to state a cause of action, the resulting default judgment was voidable, rather than void. The Supreme Court approved the decision of the Fourth District, holding that a default judgment is voidable, rather than void, when the complaint upon which the judgment is based fails to state a cause of action. View "Bank of New York Mellon v. Condo. Ass’n of La Mer Estates, Inc." on Justia Law

The Committee appealed a consolidated district court judgment affirming several bankruptcy court judgments. The court held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in approving the Settlement Agreement - a compromise the Trustee made in discharge of his fiduciary duty. The court affirmed the Trustee’s conclusion that the estate’s best interests were better served by the Settlement Agreement than by continued litigation to determine the absolute value of Chase’s secured collateral; for purposes of 11 U.S.C. 502(b), although the bankruptcy court did not adequately determine the amount of Chase’s allowed claim, its error was harmless; the bankruptcy court did not abuse the discretion afforded it by Rule 3012 in declining the Committee’s request to undertake a “more precise determination of value;” and the bankruptcy court did not err in denying the Motion to Value simultaneously with its approval of the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s consolidated judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s orders approving the Settlement Agreement, denying the Claim Objection, and denying the Motion to Value. View "Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. Chase Capital Corp." on Justia Law

Churn, the owner of a Tennessee construction company, was convicted of seven counts of bank fraud stemming from two schemes in which he received bank loans ostensibly to construct houses, but performed little to no work. The district court sentenced him to 33 months in prison and ordered restitution of $237,950.50. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the district court made evidentiary errors concerning admission of an email statement, admission of testimony concerning a permit, and admission of evidence about another transaction, and that the amount of restitution exceeded a statutory maximum under the Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663A. View "United States v. Churn" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was Connecticut’s debt negotiation statutes, Conn. Gen. Stat. 36a-671 through 36a-671e, which authorize the Banking Commissioner to license and regulate persons engaged in the debt negotiation. Plaintiff, a national consumer advocate law firm, petitioned the Commissioner for a declaratory ruling stating that Plaintiff qualified for exemption from the debt negotiation statutes under the attorney exception. This exception exempts only those attorneys admitted to the practice of law in Connecticut who engage or offer to engage in debt negotiation as an ancillary matter to the attorneys’ presentation of a client. The Commissioner concluded that Plaintiff did not qualify for exemption. The superior court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the debt negotiation statutes impermissibly intrude on the Judicial Branch’s exclusive authority to regulate attorney conduct and licensure and, therefore, violate the separation of powers provision contained in article II of the state Constitution. View "Persels & Assocs., LLC v. Banking Comm’r" on Justia Law

Avila bought his Chicago home with a $100,500 CitiMortgage loan. Five years later, a fire made the house uninhabitable. Avila’s insurance carrier paid out $150,000. CitiMortgage took control of the proceeds and paid $50,000 to get the restoration underway. CitiMortgage later inspected the work and found that it needed to be redone. By then Avila had missed several mortgage payments. CitiMortgage applied the remaining $100,000 toward Avila’s outstanding mortgage loan. Avila’s home was not repaired. CitiMortgage never claimed that restoration was economically infeasible or would reduce its security interest. Nor had any of three special conditions described in the mortgage occurred. Avila sued, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and the mortgage contract, seeking to represent a class of defaulting CitiMortgage borrowers whose insurance proceeds had been applied to their mortgage loans rather than repairs. The district court dismissed, reasoning that the allegations did not support a fiduciary duty on CitiMortgage’s part and Avila was barred from pursuing his contract claim because he had materially defaulted on his own obligations. The Seventh Circuit agreed that allegations of a fiduciary relationship were inadequate as a matter of law, but held that a claim that the mortgage agreement remained enforceable after his missed payments was plausible in light of the agreement’s structure and the remedies it prescribes in the event of default. View "Avila v. CitiMortgage, Inc." on Justia Law

The City filed three separate fair housing lawsuits against Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Citigroup, alleging that each bank had engaged in a decade-long pattern of discriminatory lending by targeting minorities for predatory loans. Each complaint contained the same two causes of action: one claim arising under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., as well as an unjust enrichment claim under Florida law. The district court dismissed the City's FHA claim. The court found that the City has constitutional standing to pursue its FHA claims; under controlling Supreme Court precedent, the “zone of interests” for the FHA extends as broadly as permitted under Article III of the Constitution, and therefore encompasses the City’s claim; while the court agreed with the district court that the FHA contains a proximate cause requirement, the court found that this analysis is based on principles drawn from the law of tort, and that the City has adequately alleged proximate cause; and the court concluded that the “continuing violation doctrine” can apply to the City’s claims, if they are adequately pled. The court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the City’s federal claims with prejudice and in denying the City’s motion for leave to amend on the grounds of futility because the district court imposed too stringent a zone of interests test and wrongly applied the proximate cause analysis. The court affirmed the dismissal of the state law claim because the benefits the City allegedly conferred on the defendants were not sufficiently direct to plead an unjust enrichment claim under Florida law. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "City of Miami v. CitiGroup Inc." on Justia Law

The City filed three separate fair housing lawsuits against Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Citigroup, alleging that each bank had engaged in a decade-long pattern of discriminatory lending by targeting minorities for predatory loans. Each complaint contained the same two causes of action: one claim arising under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., as well as an unjust enrichment claim under Florida law. The district court dismissed the City's FHA claim. The court found that the City has constitutional standing to pursue its FHA claims; under controlling Supreme Court precedent, the “zone of interests” for the FHA extends as broadly as permitted under Article III of the Constitution, and therefore encompasses the City’s claim; while the court agreed with the district court that the FHA contains a proximate cause requirement, the court found that this analysis is based on principles drawn from the law of tort, and that the City has adequately alleged proximate cause; and the court concluded that the “continuing violation doctrine” can apply to the City’s claims, if they are adequately pled. The court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the City’s federal claims with prejudice and in denying the City’s motion for leave to amend on the grounds of futility because the district court imposed too stringent a zone of interests test and wrongly applied the proximate cause analysis. The court affirmed the dismissal of the state law claim because the benefits the City allegedly conferred on the defendants were not sufficiently direct to plead an unjust enrichment claim under Florida law. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "City of Miami v. Wells Fargo & Co." on Justia Law

The City filed suit against the Bank, alleging that the Bank engaged in a decade-long pattern of discriminatory lending in the residential housing market that caused the City economic harm. The City asserts a claim arising under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., as well as an unjust enrichment claim under Florida law. The district court dismissed the City's FHA claim with prejudice. The court found that the City has constitutional standing to pursue its FHA claims; under controlling Supreme Court precedent, the “zone of interests” for the FHA extends as broadly as permitted under Article III of the Constitution, and therefore encompasses the City’s claim; while the court agreed with the district court that the FHA contains a proximate cause requirement, the court found that this analysis is based on principles drawn from the law of tort, and that the City has adequately alleged proximate cause; and the court concluded that the “continuing violation doctrine” can apply to the City’s claims, if they are adequately pled. The court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the City’s federal claims with prejudice and in denying the City’s motion for leave to amend on the grounds of futility because the district court imposed too stringent a zone of interests test and wrongly applied the proximate cause analysis. The court affirmed the dismissal of the state law claim because the benefits the City allegedly conferred on the defendants were not sufficiently direct to plead an unjust enrichment claim under Florida law. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "City of Miami v. Bank of America Corp." on Justia Law

In 2004, Laura Sheedy refinanced property she owned. For the transaction, Sheedy executed a promissory note and mortgage in favor of Washington Mutual Bank (WAMU). The mortgage was eventually assigned to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company. JPMorgan Chase National Association (Chase) serviced the loan. Deutsche Bank subsequently commenced foreclosure proceedings. Thereafter, in 2010, Sheedy filed for protection under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. As part of her plan, Sheedy raised a series of allegations of lender liability. In 2011, Sheedy filed this adversary proceeding to have the bankruptcy court resolve her lender liability claims, adding that Deutsche Bank and Chase (together, the Secured Creditors) were liable for fraud deceit, and misrepresentation on the basis that WAMU provided her with inaccurate or false information concerning the terms of the note and the mortgage. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of the Secured Creditors. The district court affirmed. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that all of Sheedy’s claims were either time-barred or without merit. View "Sheedy v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co." on Justia Law