Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Argentina appealed from permanent injunctions entered by the district court designed to remedy Argentina's failure to pay bondholders after a default in 2001 on its sovereign debt. The district court granted plaintiffs summary judgment and enjoined Argentina from making payments on debt issued pursuant to its 2005 and 2010 restructurings without making comparable payments on the defaulted debt. The court held that an equal treatment provision in the bonds barred Argentina from discriminating against plaintiffs' bonds in favor of bonds issued in connection with the restructurings and that Argentina violated that provision by ranking its payment obligations on the defaulted debt below its obligations to the holders of its restructured debt. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court; found no abuse of discretion in the injunctive relief; and concluded that the injunction did not violate the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1602-1611. However, given the need for clarity as to how the injunctions were to function, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "NML Capital, Ltd. v. The Republic of Argentina" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, in two separate appeals, challenged the grant of motions to dismiss in favor of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The court affirmed the district courts' conclusion that 12 U.S.C. 4617 precluded judicial review of a Directive issued by the FHFA to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks. The court also held that plaintiffs have failed to show that it was likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that their claims against the OCC would be redressed by vacatur of the Bulletin at issue, and therefore, the claims against the OCC were properly dismissed for lack of standing. View "Town of Babylon v. Federal Housing Finance Agency; Natural Resources Defense Council v. Federal Housing Finance Agency" on Justia Law

Defendant and Plaintiffs were co-guarantors of a promissory note signed to obtain a bank loan to pay the debts of the parties' failed corporation. Plaintiffs paid the note from their personal funds. Plaintiffs then filed an action against Defendant seeking contribution for the amounts paid from their personal funds. The circuit court determined Defendant was liable to Plaintiffs for one half the amount they paid from their personal funds and entered a judgment order against Defendant in the amount of $24,081. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, to amend the judgment. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly determined that Defendant should pay Plaintiffs $24,081. View "Beverly v. Kent" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether Respondents, a property management company, law firm, and mortgage servicer, committed an impermissible forcible entry when they enforced, through lock-out, the foreclosure purchaser's lawful possessory interest in a dwelling by the means of the common law remedy of self-help, as opposed to receiving first the issuance of a statutory writ of possession from the circuit court. The circuit court granted Respondents' motions to dismiss, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the common law right of peaceable self-help permits a foreclosure purchaser to surreptitiously enter a residential property and change the locks while the resident is out; and (2) the court of special appeals erred in dismissing Plaintiff's conversion claim and in holding that Plaintiff had abandoned all personal property in the residence, as there was no adequate basis from which to conclude that Plaintiff abandoned his personalty or that Respondents acted reasonably in disposing of his belongings. View "Nickens v. Mt. Vernon Realty" on Justia Law

BancorpSouth Bank petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the trial court to vacate its order denying the bank's motion to strike a jury demand in the complaint filed against it by Plaintiff Thomas L. Busby and to enter an order granting the Bank's motion, thereby enforcing Busby's waiver of a jury trial. The dispute arose from a construction loan to which Plaintiff Busby guaranteed. The loan agreement contained the jury trial waiver in the event of a dispute between the parties. The borrower defaulted on the loan, and the bank sought payment from Plaintiff. Plaintiff sued the bank, alleging multiple counts of fraud, misrepresentation and breach of contract. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the bank demonstrated that it had a clear legal right to have the jury demand stricken. Accordingly the Court granted the petition, issued the writ, and directed the trial court to enter an order granting the bank's motion. View "Busby v. BancorpSouth Bank" on Justia Law

According to Braden Furniture Company, Inc., between 2003 and 2010, Bonnie Manning, an assistant bookkeeper, accessed Braden Furniture's accounting program and created over 200 unauthorized checks, totaling over $470,000, that she then deposited in her account at Union State Bank. The majority of the checks did not identify a payee. Braden Furniture sued Union State Bank, RBC Bank, and Manpower, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and wantonness and violations of sections 7-3-404(d), 7-3-405(b), and 7-3-406, Ala. Code 1975. Union State Bank moved for a summary judgment. The trial court entered summary judgment for the Bank. Upon review, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether provisions in the Alabama Uniform Commercial Code ("the UCC") displaced common-law claims of negligence and wantonness when a drawer seeks to recover the loss of payment for unauthorized checks. Braden Furniture contended that the trial court erred in holding that the provisions of the UCC displaced its common-law claims of negligence and wantonness because, allowing its common-law claims to proceed did not "create rights, duties and liabilities inconsistent" with the UCC. The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court did not err in entering a summary judgment for Union State Bank in this regard. View "Braden Furniture Company, Inc. v. Union State Bank " on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether particular officers and employees of a bank owed a quasi-fiduciary duty to particular bank depositors. Michael and Theresa Annechino deposited a large amount of money at a bank specifically to ensure that their savings would be protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The Annechinos relied on bank employees’ recommendations of how to structure their accounts to meet FDIC coverage rules. Unfortunately, the bank went into receivership, and the FDIC found that nearly $500,000 of the Annechinos’ deposits were not insured. The Annechinos alleged that individual officers and employees of the bank owed them a duty, the breach of which resulted in their loss. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the individual defendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. The officers and employees of the bank did not owe the Annechinos a quasi-fiduciary duty. Holding the officers and employees personally liable under these facts would have contravened established law regarding liability for acts committed on behalf of a corporation or principal. View "Annechino v. Worthy" on Justia Law

At issue in this dispute over a mortgage was whether statutes of limitations apply to actions for declaratory judgment. The court of appeals reversed in part the district court's grant of summary judgment to Defendant based on the applicable statute of limitations, holding that to the extent Plaintiff's complaint sought declaratory relief, it was not barred by the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act is a procedural device through which parties may vindicate substantive legal rights, an action for declaratory judgment is barred by an applicable statute of limitations to the same extent that the same cause of action would be barred in a nondeclaratory proceeding. Remanded. View "Weavewood, Inc. v. S & P Home Invs., LLC" on Justia Law

Debtor executed a Balloon Note and Deed of Trust in favor of Wells Fargo for the purchase of a home and subsequently filed for bankruptcy. On appeal, Wells Fargo challenged the district court's amended order granting debtor's motion for summary judgment, finding that Wells Fargo was judicially estopped from filing a claim in the Second Bankruptcy for any amounts that could have been, but were not, claimed in the First Bankruptcy. Because the district court abused its discretion in finding that Wells Fargo adopted inconsistent positions in debtor's bankruptcy proceedings and that the bankruptcy court's acceptance of Wells Fargo's claims in the First Bankruptcy was not negated by debtor's dismissal without discharge, the application of judicial estoppel was not warranted. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Oparaji" on Justia Law

In July 2003, Michael Bandler and Michael Bandler & Company, Inc., (collectively “Bandler”) sued Charter One for various claims based primarily on Charter One’s alleged failure to honor advertising promises and other representations in connection with Bandler’s checking account at Charter One. Charter One moved to dismiss the case on the ground that Bandler had failed to exhaust his contractual remedy of arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (AAA) as required by Bandler’s depositor agreements with Charter One.  The trial court granted Charter One’s motion to dismiss and indicated that the parties should arbitrate Bandler’s claims as agreed by contract.  The trial court issued a final judgment in favor of Charter One in November 2003, and subsequently denied Bandler’s post-judgment motions for relief. In November 2004, Bandler made a demand to Charter One to arbitrate under the arbitration clauses in his depositor agreement with Charter One, thereby initiating an arbitration proceeding before the AAA.  Bandler’s initial arbitration demand did not include any class-based claims. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the superior court had authority to review questions regarding arbitrability in the midst of an arbitration, and outside of the specific review provisions in the Vermont Arbitration Act (VAA). Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that it did not, and reversed the superior court’s ruling concerning the arbitrability of class claims in this case. View "Bandler v. Charter One Bank " on Justia Law