Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was whether the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (FDIC) extender statute, 12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(14)(A), which governs the timeliness of the deficiency judgment suits that are brought by the FDIC, preempts Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.455(1)’s six-month time limitation for deficiency judgment actions. In this case, FDIC filed a claim for a deficiency judgment after section 40.455(1)’s six-month deadline but within the FDIC extender statute’s six-year time limitation. The district court dismissed the deficiency judgment claim as untimely. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the FDIC extender statute expressly preempts section 40.455(1) regardless of whether the state statute is a statute of limitations or repose; and (2) because the FDIC filed its deficiency judgment action within the FDIC extender statute’s time limitation, the district court erred in dismissing the FDIC’s deficiency judgment action as time-barred. View "Fed. Deposit. Ins. Corp. v. Rhodes" on Justia Law

A 2004 judgment entered against John Zelaya was rendered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and was registered in the Southern District of Florida. ZC was not party to the suit that led to the judgment and, instead, the prevailing parties assigned their interests in the judgment to ZC. ZC then sought a writ of execution against Zelaya from the Southern District of Florida. In 2010, Zelaya deposited the full amount of the judgment into the district court's registry where the district court then dissolved writs of garnishment against all of the banks at issue, granted Zelaya's motion for a satisfaction judgment, and awarded attorney fees and costs to Deutsche Bank. The court concluded that it had jurisdiction over the consolidated appeal; the district court did not err in allowing Zelaya to deposit the disputed funds into the court's registry; the district court did not err in granting Zelaya's motion for a satisfaction of the judgment; the district court did not err in its award of attorney fees and costs to Deutsche Bank; and, therefore, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Zelaya/Capital Int'l Judgment, LLC v. Zelaya, et al." on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from the sale of dairy cattle that were subject to Appellant Farmers National Bank’s (FNB) perfected security interest and Respondent J&M Cattle Company’s (J&M) agister’s lien. The net sale proceeds received from the sale of the dairy cattle were insufficient to satisfy both FNB’s perfected security interest and J&M’s agister’s lien. J&M filed an action for declaratory relief to resolve FNB’s and J&M’s competing interests. Although FNB’s perfected security interest had a priority date that predates J&M’s lien, the district court determined that J&M’s lien had priority over FNB’s perfected security interest. The district court entered a final judgment in favor of J&M, and FNB appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision. View "J&M Cattle Co v. Farmers National Bank" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the district court’s approval of the Utah Department of Financial Institutions’ (UDFI) seizure of America West Bank Members, L.C. (Bank) and the appointment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as receiver of the Bank. The Bank filed a complaint against the State, UDFI, and the director of UDFI (collectively, the State), alleging breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, constitutional takings, and due process violations. The district court dismissed the Bank’s claims for lack of sufficient factual allegations under Utah R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err when it dismissed the Bank’s claims; and (2) the district court did not hold the Bank to a heightened pleading standard. View "America West Bank Members, L.C. v. State" on Justia Law

After Stratton stopped making payments on her credit card, GE “charged off” Stratton’s $2,630.95 debt, as uncollectible. GE stopped charging Stratton interest. By charging off the debt and ceasing to charge interest GE could take a bad-debt tax deduction, I.R.C. 166(a)(2), and avoid the cost of sending Stratton statements. A year later, GE assigned Stratton’s charged-off debt to PRA, a “debt buyer.” Two years later, PRA filed suit in state court, alleging that Stratton owed interest during the 10 months after GE charged off her debt, before GE sold that debt, and that Stratton owed 8% interest rather than the 21.99% rate established in her contract with GE. The 8% rate is the default rate under Kentucky’s usury statute, KRS 360.010. Stratton filed a putative class action, alleging that PRA’s attempt to collect 8% interest for the 10-month period violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692, in that the 8% interest was not “expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law,” that PRA had falsely represented the “character” of Stratton’s debt and the “amount” owed, and that PRA’s suit was a “threat” to take “action that cannot legally be taken.” The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit reversed. Under Kentucky law a party has no right to statutory interest if it has waived the right to collect contractual interest; any attempt to collect statutory interest when it is “not permitted by law” violates the FDCPA. View "Stratton v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC" on Justia Law

The Bank filed a judicial foreclosure action to collect a loan secured by two parcels of real estate which had been made to a husband and wife. After the husband died, the loan went into default. The Bank and wife agreed to a private sale of one of the parcels that was her separate property and Bank filed the foreclosure action on the remaining parcel to obtain a deficiency judgment. The trial court granted the Bank's motion for summary adjudication of its judicial foreclosure cause of action and determined that the Bank was entitled to obtain a deficiency judgment against the representatives of the husband's estate (appellants). The court concluded that, because the Bank failed to show the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure 726 for creditors seeking deficiency judgments by disposing of the property at issue outside of judicial foreclosure and without appellants' consent or waiver, the Bank has waived any right to a deficiency against them. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the trial court. View "First CA Bank v. McDonald" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, family members or trustees of the estates of victims of state-sponsored terrorism, seek to enforce their 2009 Florida state court judgment obtained against Cuba by attaching the blocked assets of that state under section 201 of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 (TRIA), 28 U.S.C. 1610 note. Plaintiffs seek to satisfy the underlying judgment from electronic fund transfers (EFTs) blocked under the Cuban Assets Control Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 515. The court concluded that the EFTs are not attachable under section 201 because no terrorist party or agency or instrumentality thereof has a property interest in the EFTs. In this case, it is undisputed that no Cuban entity transmitted any of the blocked EFTs directly to the blocking bank. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for plaintiffs and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hausler et al., v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al." on Justia Law

The respondents in this case were fourteen non-residents who were named in a petition filed by the New Hampshire Bank Commissioner, as liquidator for Noble Trust Company (Noble) and Aegean Scotia Holdings, LLC (Aegean Scotia). They appealed a superior court order denying their motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Each respondent had signed an individual account application with Noble Trust Company, which had a New Hampshire address. Respondents' accounts were funded with either a check deposit (mailed to New Hampshire) or wired electronically. As respondents tried to check on their accounts, withdraw from or close their accounts, they encountered problems. Respondents' petition alleged Noble was involved in a Ponzi scheme, in which the Bank was using their money to cover losses of other investors. They sought to set aside transfers of money from Noble to the respondents, impose constructive trusts, and recover for unjust enrichment and conversion. The respondents moved to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over the respondents on the basis that: (1) respondents Carlson and the Schweitzers filed proofs of claim in the liquidation proceeding against Noble in New Hampshire; and (2) the remaining respondents had sufficient minimum contacts with New Hampshire. The Supreme Court found no reversible error with the superior court's decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "New Hampshire Bank Commissioner v. Sweeney" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the named Defendant in this action, and others formed a limited liability company (the LLC) to purchase and redevelop certain property. After the LLC acquired the property, Plaintiff guaranteed the payment of two loans from a Bank. In the meantime, Plaintiff, Defendant, and others entered into backstop guarantee agreements that provided protection to Plaintiff in the event he was required to honor his personal guarantees to the Bank. The Bank later commenced foreclosure proceedings against the LLC and Plaintiff as guarantor. The court rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure, and the Bank sought a deficiency judgment against the Plaintiff. The Bank and Plaintiff entered into a settlement agreement. Thereafter, Plaintiff commenced the present action against Defendants to enforce the backstop guarantee agreements. The trial court concluded that the backstop guarantee agreements were unenforceable. The Appellate Court reversed. Defendant appealed, claiming that Plaintiff’s tax treatment of the debt that Defendant guaranteed effectively divested Plaintiff of his interest in the debt, and therefore, Plaintiff had no standing to enforce the backstop guarantee agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff had standing to enforce the agreement. View "One Country, LLC v. Johnson" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether the “separate entity” rule continues to be valid law and serves to prevent a judgment creditor from ordering a garnishee bank operating branches in New York to restrain a judgment debtor’s assets held in foreign branches of the bank. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit certified this question of law to the New York Court of Appeals. Plaintiff, the judgment creditor in this case, asked the Court of Appeals to disavow the separate entity doctrine as outmoded and unnecessary. Defendant, the garnishee bank, urged that the rule remains vital in the context of international banking. The Court of Appeals answered the certified question in the affirmative, holding that the separate entity remains valid, and thus, a judgment creditor’s service of a restraining notice on a garnishee bank’s New York branch is ineffective under the separate entity rule to freeze assets held in the bank’s foreign branches. View "Motorola Credit Corp. v Standard Chartered Bank" on Justia Law