Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff executed a promissory note that was secured by a mortgage on her real estate. The mortgage deed named Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as the mortgagee. The note was transferred to USA Residential Properties, LLC, and Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC became the servicer for the loan. MERS then assigned its interest in the mortgage to ACT Properties, LLC, which assigned its interest in the mortgage to USA Residential. When Rushmore initiated foreclosure proceedings, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the assignment from MERS to ACT Properties was invalid because the signer was unauthorized. When Plaintiff filed a notice to depose a MERS designee as to the authority of the official who executed the assignment from MERS to ACT Properties, MERS moved for a protective order seeking to restrict discovery, arguing that Plaintiff had no standing to challenge the validity of the assignment. The hearing justice denied the motion. The Supreme Court quashed the hearing justice’s decision, holding that because Plaintiff merely alleged that the assignment was voidable, as opposed to void, and because she was not a party to the assignment, she lacked standing to challenge it and was not entitled to engage in discovery pertaining to the authority issue. View "Cruz v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

In order to finance her purchase of a home, Plaintiff executed a note payable to New Century Mortgage Corporation. The note was secured by a mortgage on the property naming Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as mortgagee. New Century, the lender, subsequently filed for bankruptcy and filed a notice of rejection of executory contract regarding its membership agreement with MERS and its status as a MERS member. MERS then assigned the mortgage to UBS Real Estate Securities, and UBS assigned the mortgage to USA Residential Properties. Thereafter, USA Residential and its loan servicer, Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, commenced foreclosure proceedings against Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed this complaint against MERS, UBS, USA Residential, and Rushmore, declaring that the mortgage assignments were void and the foreclosure sale was invalid. The superior court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim, concluding that Plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the assignments of the mortgage and, alternatively, that the assignments were valid and the foreclosure proper. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that Plaintiff had standing to challenge the assignment of the mortgage on her home and adequately stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. View "DiLibero v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Exactly three years after borrowing money to refinance their home mortgage, the Jesinoskis sent the lender a letter purporting to rescind the transaction. The lender replied, refusing to acknowledge the rescission’s validity. One year and one day later, the Jesinoskis filed suit, seeking a declaration of rescission and damages. The district court entered judgment on the pleadings, concluding that a borrower can exercise the Truth in Lending Act’s right to rescind, 15 U. S. C.1635(a), (f), only by filing a lawsuit within three years of the date the loan was consummated. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The unanimous Supreme Court reversed. A borrower exercising his right to rescind under the Act need only provide written notice to his lender within the 3-year period, not file suit within that period. Section 1635(a)’s language: a borrower “shall have the right to rescind . . . by notifying the creditor . . . of his intention to do so,” indicates that rescission is effected when the borrower notifies the creditor of his intention. The statute says nothing about how that right is exercised and does not state that rescission is necessarily a consequence of judicial action. View "Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc." on Justia Law

Oliver was manager and part-owner of PSC. Oliver and PSC sought to refinance property on Lake Superior. Meecorp required additional collateral. Oliver identified 14 other income-producing properties and his interest in each. The sum of the “Oliver values” was more than $1 million. Gandolf, owned by Oliver and PSC, supplied: cash-flow projections, the value of Oliver’s interests, member-control agreements, certificates of good standing, and Schedule K-1s for Gandolf-owned LLCs associated with each property. Gandolf did not supply the deeds of ownership. Meecorp concluded that Oliver, individually, could not pledge adequate collateral for a loan of $1.32 million, having no direct interest in the properties. Meecorp requested that Gandolf, as owner of the remaining governance rights and the 100% owner of the financial rights, pledge its interests in the LLCs. Oliver, as Gandolf’s representative, signed the pledge. Meecorp delivered the funds. Oliver and PSC defaulted. Meecorp learned that neither Oliver nor Gandolf’s LLCs owned the pledged properties; Gandolf’s LLCs were general partners in undisclosed limited partnerships that owned each property. Undisclosed limited partners owned up to 99.99% of the equity in the properties; limited-partnership organizational documents prohibited the general partners (LLCs) from pledging their interests without consent. Meecorp sued. The district court granted Meecorp summary judgment on its breach-of-the-note claim against PSC and its breach-of-guaranty claim against Oliver, awarding $2,366,191.88, and entered judgment against Gandolf for breach-of-the-guaranty and against Gandolf, Oliver, and PSC for fraud. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. View "Meecorp Capital Mkts., LLC v. Oliver" on Justia Law

The Bank of Maine filed a complaint seeking foreclosure of Defendant’s primary residence. Defendant failed to file a timely answer, and the superior court later entered Defendant’s default. Defendant responded to the complaint and requested mediation on the date default was entered. The court granted summary judgment to the Bank and entered judgments of foreclosure that included legal fees. Defendant appealed, arguing that the time limit established by Me. R. Civ. P. 93 improperly limits a defendant’s substantive right to mediation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Rule 93 is not an improper limitation of the substantive rights of litigants; and (2) because Defendant did not request mediation pursuant to Rule 93 in a timely manner, the court did abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s request for mediation. View "Bank of Maine v. Peterson" on Justia Law

Loop 101, LLC (“Loop”) borrowed money from MidFirst Bank to construct an office building. The promissory note was secured by a deed of trust, and four individuals guaranteed payment. The note, deed of trust, and gurantees expressly waived the fair market value provision of Ariz. Rev. Stat. 33-814(A). MidFirst assigned its rights under the loan and deed of trust to CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC (“CSA”). After Loop defaulted on the loan, CSA bought the property at a trustee’s sale for a credit bid of $6.15 million. CSA then sued Loop and the guarantors for a deficiency judgment. Loop and the guarantors counterclaimed and filed a third-party claim against MidFirst for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. MidFirst and CSA moved to dismiss, arguing that Loop and the guarantors had waived their right to a fair market value determination. The superior court ruled that parties may not prospectively waive this provision, determined the fair market value of the property to be $12.5 million, and concluded that no deficiency existed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that parties may not prospectively waive the fair market value provision of section 33-814(A). View "CSA 13-101 Loop, LLC v. Loop 101, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants in state court, challenging the foreclosure proceedings that ultimately resulted in the sale of his property. Defendants removed to federal court and moved for judgment on the pleadings. The court affirmed the district court's order denying leave to amend plaintiff's complaint to add additional federal claims; vacated the district court's orders relating to the state-law claims against Chase and Shapiro & Burson because the D.C. statutory and common law claims against the bank and its foreclosing agent should have been decided by the local courts; and remanded to the district court with instructions to remand to Superior Court for determination of plaintiff's state-law claims against those parties. View "Araya v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Gordon and Carol Lane took out a loan secured by a piece of commercial real estate. John Serpa executed a personal guaranty upon the loan. The Lanes defaulted on their obligation, and Serpa failed to fulfill his guarantor duties. Before the original lender exercised its right to foreclose, the FDIC was appointed its receiver and assigned the interest in the Lanes’ loan to First Financial Bank, N.A. (FFB). FFB foreclosed and sold the property to itself. FFB then brought a deficiency judgment and breach of guaranty action against the Lanes and Serpa (collectively, Respondents). The district court entered judgment in Respondents’ favor under Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.451 because the fair market value of the property exceeded the consideration the FFB paid the FDIC to acquire a lien on the property. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the definition of “indebtedness” found in section 40.451 does not limit the amount a successor lienholder can recover in an action for a deficiency judgment to the amount of consideration such a lienholder paid to obtain its interest in the note and deed of trust. Remanded. View "First Fin. Bank v. Lane" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, pension funds, filed suit, seeking to hold BNYM responsible for the losses allegedly caused by Countrywide's breach of its representations and warranties in connection with 530 residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) created between 2004 and 2008 for which BNYM acts as trustee. The court affirmed the portion of the district court's order dismissing plaintiffs' claims related to the trusts in which they did not invest for lack of standing because plaintiffs' claims do not implicate the "same set of concerns" as those of absent class members who purchased certificates issued by trusts in which no named plaintiff invested; reversed the portion of that order denying BNYM's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Trust Indenture Act (TIA), 15 U.S.C. 77aaa-77aaaa, claims related to the PSA-governed (pooling and servicing agreements) New York trusts where the New York certificates at issue are exempt from section 304(a)(2) of the TIA; and the court remanded in part for further proceedings. View "Retirement Board v. Bank of New York Mellon" on Justia Law

CET owns the asserted patents, which share substantially the same specification. The four patents contain a total of 242 claims. The claims generally recite a method of extracting data from hard copy documents using an automated digitizing unit such as a scanner, recognizing specific information from the extracted data, and storing that information in a memory. This method can be performed by software on an automated teller machine (ATM) that recognizes information written on a scanned check, such as the check’s amount, and populates certain data fields with that information in a computer’s memory. CET asserted infringement by banking entities. Diebold, the manufacturer of ATMs used by the banking entities, sought a declaratory judgment that its ATMs did not infringe CET’s asserted patents and that CET’s patents were invalid and sought injunctive and monetary relief for tortious interference and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) arising from CET’s act of filing allegedly baseless infringement suits against its customers. The district court dismissed CET’s infringement action, holding that the claims of the asserted patents are invalid as patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 and dismissed Diebold’s claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Content Extraction & Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank" on Justia Law