Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

In 2007 the McDonalds opened a J.P. Morgan Bank investment account and a brokerage account with its affiliate, J.P. Morgan Securities (JPMS). Different contracts governed the accounts. The Bank managed the money in the investment account, while the McDonalds directed the funds in their JPMS brokerage account. By the end of 2008, the McDonalds had lost $1.5 million from the Bank investment account. The money held in the JPMS account produced a profit. The McDonalds filed an arbitration demand, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, self-dealing, and other misrepresentation and mismanagement. They did not name the Bank, but named only JPMS and Bank employees who set up and oversaw the accounts. The McDonalds claimed that the employees ignored their stated investment goals by putting nearly all their money in an illiquid proprietary hedge fund. The claim charged JPMS (not the Bank) with vicarious liability for failing to supervise. JPMS is registered with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, as are the employees. FINRA is an industry self-regulatory organization, and under its rules JPMS and the employees were subject to arbitration at the McDonalds’ request, an obligation reiterated in the contract governing the JPMS account. The Bank is not a member of FINRA; the Bank’s contract did not provide for arbitration. The Bank sought to prevent arbitration. The district court dismissed, finding that the Bank lacked standing to block the arbitration to which it was not a party and that the two employees were indispensable parties. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The Bank has standing to sue because the arbitration would violate a forum-selection clause in its contract with the McDonalds. The McDonalds cannot avoid that clause by naming only an affiliate and the employees, who are not necessary parties.View "J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. McDonald" on Justia Law

After Elliott defaulted on his mortgage GMAC Mortgage sued to foreclose. The circuit court granted GMAC summary judgment on his right to foreclose, finding (1) Freddie Mac was the owner of the promissory note (Note), and GMAC was the Note’s holder and servicer; and (2) GMAC, as holder and service, had authority to enforce the Note. Elliott appealed, arguing that GMAC lacked standing at the time it initiated foreclosure. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err by granting GMAC’s motion for summary judgment because GMAC ultimately provided a properly indorsed bearer Note, mortgage, and evidence of default, thus providing evidence that GMAC had standing.View "Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Elliott" on Justia Law

U.S. Bank National Association (the Bank) filed an amended complaint for residential foreclosure against Thomas Manning. The case progressed through its pretrial stages. Eventually, the superior court dismissed the Bank’s foreclosure complaint with prejudice as a sanction for the Bank’s failure to comply with the court’s discovery order. The Bank appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion in dismissing the complaint under the circumstances and that the court erred at several points as the case proceeded through its procedural steps. The Supreme Court agreed with the Bank and vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that the order dismissing the Bank’s complaint with prejudice was an abuse of the court’s discretion.View "U.S. Bank N.A. v. Manning" on Justia Law

Coastal filed suit against Chase Bank, asserting claims of conversion and negligence under the Texas Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and money had and received under the common law. At issue on interlocutory appeal was whether section 3.405 of the UCC can serve as an affirmative defense to a common law "money and received" claim and whether settlement credits in Texas reduce the nonsettling defendant's liability rather than the plaintiff's total loss. The court concluded that the money had and received claim as applied in this situation must simply incorporate the affirmative defense provided by section 3.405. Therefore, the district court did not err in its determination that section 3.405 could so be applied. Further, the district court was correct in holding that the settlement credit should be applied to reduce the nonsettling defendant's liability, not the plaintiff's total loss. On remand, however, the district court must give Coastal an opportunity to demonstrate that allocation of the settlement amount is appropriate. Accordingly, the court affirmed and remanded for further proceedings.View "Coastal Agricultural Supply v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

A mortgagee (Plaintiff) obtained a judgment of strict foreclosure against the mortgagor of certain property. More than thirty days after the time in which to redeem the subject property had expired, Plaintiff filed a motion for a deficiency judgment seeking to collect money damages from the guarantors of the mortgage note. The guarantors objected to the request for a hearing in damages, arguing that Plaintiff was barred from obtaining any additional remedy from the guarantors under Conn. Gen. Stat. 49-1, under which the foreclosure of a mortgage is a bar to further action against persons liable for the payment of the mortgage debt, note or obligation who are, or may be, made parties to the foreclosure. The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court’s judgment in favor of the guarantors, holding that section 49-1 had no effect on Plaintiff’s ability to recover the remaining unpaid debt from the guarantors because the guarantors were not parties to the foreclosure claim, as the guarantors’ liability arose separately under their guarantee.View "JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA v. Winthrop Props., LLC" on Justia Law

In 2007 Rufini purchased his Sonoma residence with a $600,000 loan. Rufini and his fiancée lived in the home until they separated. In June 2009, CitiMortgage approved Rufini for a loan modification and told him he would receive a permanent modification after making timely trial payments of $2787.93 in July, August and September. Rufini timely made the payments at the modified rate through December. In January, 2010, CitiMortgage informed him that his permanent loan modification agreement would be ready in three days. Three months later, with still no written agreement, he rented out his house to offset expenses In August Rufini learned that Citibank was denying his loan modification, because the home was not owner-occupied. He attempted to make timely mortgage payments at the modified level, but CitiMortgage returned his checks. Rufini received a notice of default in September 2010, followed by a notice of trustee’s sale scheduled for January 2011. He contacted CitiMortgage and obtained its agreement to delay the foreclosure. CitiMortgage assigned Semien to Rufini’s account, but Rufini was unable to contact him on the phone for three and a half weeks. On April 11 Rufini was informed his modification was “in final state of completion.” On May 4, his house was sold at auction. The trial court dismissed Rufini’s complaint alleging “breach of contract—promissory estoppel,” breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair business practices, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation. The appeals court reversed and remanded the claims of negligent representation and under Business and Professions Code section 17200, the unfair competition law. View "Rufini v. CitiMortgage" on Justia Law

Bormes, an attorney, tendered the filing fee for a lawsuit via pay.gov, which the federal courts use to facilitate electronic payments. The web site sent him an email receipt that included the last four digits of his credit card’s number, plus the card’s expiration date. Bormes, claiming that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681c(g)(1) allows a receipt to contain one or the other, but not both, filed suit against the United States seeking damages. In an earlier appeal the Supreme Court held that the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(2), does not waive sovereign immunity on a suit seeking to collect damages for an asserted violation of FCRA and remanded for determination of “whether FCRA itself waives the Federal Government’s immunity to damages under 1681n.” The Seventh Circuit held that although the United States has waived immunity against damages actions of this kind, it did not violate the statute on the merits. The statute as written applies to receipts “printed … at the point of the sale or transaction.” The email receipt that Bormes received met neither requirement. View "Bormes v. United States" on Justia Law

Appellant used NVR Mortgage Finance, Inc. to apply for a mortgage and paid NVR Mortgage a broker fee. More than three but fewer than twelve years later, Appelalnt sued NVR Mortgage and NVR, Inc. (collectively, NVR) for allegedly violating Md. Code Ann., Com. Law 12-805(d) by failing to make certain disclosures to Appellant and similarly situated homebuyers before collecting finder’s fees for brokering mortgages. At issue before the Supreme Court was whether an alleged violation of CL 12-805(d) is an “other specialty” under Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. 5-102(a)(6), which is subject to a twelve-year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court answered the certified question of law in the negative, holding that an alleged violation of CL 12-805(d) is not an “other specialty” under CJP 5-102(a)(6), and thus is subject to the default three-year statute of limitations. View "NVR Mortgage Fin., Inc. v. Carlsen" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that he was the victim of a fraudulent scheme in which he allowed an attorney to take title to his home and strip it of its equity by granting a new mortgage. Plaintiff filed suit against the mortgagee in an effort to avoid foreclosure. A federal district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim that the mortgage was void. The district court denied Plaintiff’s subsequent motion to amend his complaint. The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint and the denial of his motion for leave to amend, holding (1) Plaintiff’s complaint provided no legal basis for making the bank liable for the attorney’s wrongdoing; and (2) Plaintiff failed adequately to plead facts supporting his proposed amendments to his complaint, and therefore, his new claims were also futile.View "Giuffre v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Countrywide and others involved in their residential mortgage, alleging violations of numerous federal statutes. The district court dismissed the claims with prejudice and plaintiffs appealed. The court held that plaintiffs can state a claim for rescission under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., without pleading that they have tendered, or that they have the ability to tender, the value of their loan; only at the summary judgment stage may a court order the statutory sequence altered and require tender before rescission - and then only on a case-by-case basis; and, therefore, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' rescission claim and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that, although the limitations period in the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2614, ordinarily runs from the date of the alleged RESPA violation, the doctrine of equitable tolling may, in the appropriate circumstances, suspend the limitations period until the borrower discovers or had reasonable opportunity to discover the violation; just as for TILA claims, district courts may evaluate RESPA claims case-by-case; and, therefore, in this case, the court vacated the dismissal of plaintiffs' Section 8 of RESPA claims on limitations grounds and remanded for reconsideration. View "Merritt v. Countrywide Financial Corp." on Justia Law