Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was whether a borrower may rescind a loan that has not been consummated pursuant to the federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA). Prior to closing on a home refinancing loan, Respondent submitted to the lender a notice of rescission of the loan. Thereafter, Respondent signed a note and deed of trust consistent with the negotiated terms of the loan. The loan proceeds were distributed as previously agreed to by the parties, and Respondent made payments on the note for approximately two years. Respondent subsequently defaulted on the loan, and the home was sold at a foreclosure public auction. Respondent filed exceptions to the foreclosure sale, arguing that he had rescinded the loan. The circuit court overruled the exceptions and ratified the sale. The court of special appeals reversed, holding that the rescission notice was timely because there was no language in 15 U.S.C. 1635 or TILA’s implementing regulation prohibiting a borrower from rescinding a loan prior to consummation of the transaction, and therefore, such an action was supported by statute. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, under TILA, a loan may not be rescinded before it is consummated. View "Burson v. Capps" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sought damages under the doctrine of promissory estoppel after losing their home in a foreclosure sale which they understood from a phone conversation with the bank would be postponed to a date 10 days after the actual sale date. The trial court dismissed. The court of appeal affirmed, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a triable issue of material fact regarding detrimental reliance or injury under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. They did not relinquish any legal right to stay the bank’s foreclosure View "Jones v. Wachovia Bank" on Justia Law

Defendant borrowed $143,065 in two separate loans from a Corporation. The Corporation assigned its interest in the notes to a Bank, which assigned the second loan (loan two) to Plaintiff, a municipality. Defendant had fully paid off the first loan (loan one), but determining that Defendant had defaulted on his payment obligations as to loan two, Plaintiff brought an action against Defendant to foreclose on the property. Defendant counterclaimed, arguing, among other things, that he made an overpayment on loan two. The trial court concluded that Plaintiff was liable to Defendant for the total amount Defendant claimed to have overpaid on loan two to Plaintiff and all other prior holders of the note. The Appellate Court reversed, concluding that, in the absence of an express contract provision, “an assignee generally does not assume the original responsibilities of the assignor." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Appellate Court properly determined that Plaintiff, “as the most recent assignee and current holder of Defendant’s note, could not be held liable to repay Defendant for sums that were overpaid on the note before it was assigned to Plaintiff.” View "Hartford v. McKeever" on Justia Law

In 2003, the Supreme Court held that Seattle Savings Bank had the right to foreclose on certain property that Defendant inherited from his mother. In 2007, the Bank executed a quitclaim deed conveying the property to the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae). Because Defendant refused to vacate the property, Fannie Mae filed a trespass and ejectment complaint. Defendant, in turn, argued that Fannie Mae was not entitled to possession of the property. The trial court awarded Fannie Mae possession of the property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the superior court correctly found that Fannie Mae had the right to possess the property. View "Fed. Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n v. Malinou" on Justia Law

A mortgage deed designated Desmond Leone as the mortgagor of his home and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as the mortgagee, acting as nominee for the lender, Equity One, Inc. MERS later assigned its interest in the mortgage to Assets Recovery Center Investments, LLC (ARC). When Leone failed to make timely payments to the lender, ARC, which Equity One had authorized to act on its behalf, initiated foreclosure proceedings. Leone subsequently filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the assignment from MERS to ARC was invalid and also sought to quiet title to the property. A hearing justice granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants - MERS, Equity One, and ARC. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the hearing justice properly found that no genuine issues of material fact existed and that the matter was ripe for summary judgment in favor of Defendants. View "Leone v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Defendants for fraud and deceptive trade practices in connection with a real estate purchase and loan arrangement. The jury found in favor of Plaintiff and awarded him compensatory damages consisting of actual damages and emotional distress damages, as well as punitive damages. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment as to consequential damages and remanded for a redetermination of punitive damages. On remand, the district court instructed the jury that it was to decide “what amount, if any, [Plaintiff] was entitled to for punitive damages.” After punitive damages were awarded, Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s punitive damages award and remanded for a new trial, holding (1) Nev. Rev. Stat. 42.005(3) requires a second jury on remand to reassess whether punitive damages are warranted before that jury may determine the amount of punitive damages to be awarded; and (2) because the jury instruction did not require the jury to make the threshold determination of whether punitive damages could be awarded, the case must be remanded for a new trial on punitive damages. View "D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Betsinger" on Justia Law

The Wiggintons receive Social Security disability benefits. They applied to Bank of America for a mortgage to be repaid using those benefits. The Bank asked for information from their physicians, or the SSA, showing that the benefits would last for at least three years. When no such information was forthcoming, the Bank declined to make the loan. An administrative complaint and negotiations followed; the seller pulled out of the transaction. The Wiggintons sued, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act. The district court dismissed the suit on the pleadings, noting that the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. 1691(b)(2), provides that it does not constitute discrimination (for purposes of that statute) for a bank to collect information about “whether the applicant’s income derives from any public assistance program if such inquiry is for the purpose of determining the amount and probable continuance of income levels, credit history, or other pertinent element of credit-worthiness.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The complaint did not allege that the Wiggintons were treated worse than other applicants. The court noted that the Bank has since settled a suit by the Department of Justice and promised not to ask for the sort of information it sought from the Wiggintons. View "Wigginton v. Bank of America Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a quiet title complaint against Guild and others, alleging that the loans secured by the real property at issue were securitized, resulting in defendants' interest in the real property being extinguished, relinquished or discharged. On appeal, plaintiff argued that he can state a valid cause of action for quiet title based on allegations that the attempt to transfer the first deed of trust to the mortgage-backed "investment" trust (CWALT) did not comply with the trust's servicing and pooling agreement and was therefore void. The court concluded that plaintiff's argument was addressed in Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and the court agreed with Jenkins that, in this case, such allegations do not give rise to a viable preemptive action that overrides California's nonjudicial foreclosure rules. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and concluded that Guild's demurrer was properly sustained. View "Kan v. Guild Mortgage" on Justia Law

Bank of America, N.A. filed a complaint in foreclosure against George and Bridget Kuchta, claiming to be the holder of a promissory note and assignee of the mortgage. The trial court granted summary judgment to the bank and entered a decree of foreclosure in its favor. The Kuchtas moved to vacate the summary judgment and decree of foreclosure, arguing that the bank lacked standing to commence the action because it did not prove ownership of the note and because the mortgage assignment was fatally flawed. The trial court denied the motion. The court of appeals reversed, holding that standing is a jurisdictional matter and that Bank of America’s alleged lack of standing would warrant relief from judgment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a lack of standing cannot support a motion for relief from judgment, and lack of standing does not render a judgment void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. View "Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta" on Justia Law

In 2004, Charles Adams conveyed a portion of his parcel of property to himself and his sister, Dorothy Adams, as joint tenants. Dorothy subsequently executed a promissory note to American Bankers Conduit and conveyed a mortgage on her interest in the property as security on the note. Dorothy defaulted on the loan in 2008. In 2012, U.S. Bank sought to place an equitable lien on Charles’s interest in the property. After a trial, the superior court entered a judgment on the merits in favor of Charles. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded for entry of dismissal, holding that because the complaint was not timely filed the action should have been dismissed pursuant to 14 Me. Rev. Stat. 752. Remanded. View "U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n as Trustee v. Adams" on Justia Law