Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Stephanie and Kenneth Woolsey attempted to discharge a second mortgage on their home held by Citibank, N.A. through Chapter 13 bankruptcy. In their plan, they took the position that the bankruptcy code voided Citibank’s lien because it was unsupported by any current value in the home. The bank objected to the Woolseys’ plan and eventually persuaded the bankruptcy court to reject it. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court, and the Woolseys appealed to the Tenth Circuit. In their argument on appeal, "[t]hey choose to pursue instead and exclusively a line of attack long foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent. To be sure, the Woolseys argue[d] vigorously and with some support that the Supreme Court ha[d] it wrong. But, as Justice Jackson reminds us, whether or not the Supreme Court is infallible, it is final." The Tenth Circuit was "obliged" to apply the Supreme Court's current case law and affirmed the district and bankruptcy court's decisions. View "Woolsey, et al v. Citibank, N.A." on Justia Law

In 2007, Fifth Third loaned Buford $406,000 in exchange for a mortgage on property that Buford purportedly owned. Fifth Third obtained a title-insurance policy from Direct Title, an issuing agent for Chicago Title. Direct Title was a fraudulent agent; its sole “member” was the actual title owner of the property and conspired with Buford to use that single property as collateral to obtain multiple loans from different lenders. When creditors foreclosed on the property in state court, Fifth Third intervened and asked Chicago Title to defend and compensate. Chicago Title refused to defend or indemnify. Chicago Title sought to avoid summary judgment, indicating that it needed discovery on the questions whether “Fifth Third failed to follow objectively reasonable and prudent underwriting standards” in processing Buford’s loan application and whether Direct Title had authority to issue the title-insurance policy. The district court granted Fifth Third summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, noting that “When a party comes to us with nine grounds for reversing the district court, that usually means there are none.”View "Fifth Third Mortg. Co. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff commenced this action, on behalf of herself and the 181 other individuals in New York State who had received student loan collection letters from defendant. At issue was whether a debt collector's inaccurate representation to a debtor that her student loans were "ineligible" for bankruptcy discharge was a "false, misleading, or deceptive" debt collection practice, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. The court held that it was because the least sophisticated consumer would interpret defendant's letter as representing, incorrectly, that bankruptcy discharge of her loans was wholly unavailable to her. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Easterling v. Collecto, Inc." on Justia Law

Javell, the owner of a mortgage brokerage, and Arroyo, Javell’s employee and loan processor, were convicted of two counts of mortgage-based wire fraud (18 U.S.C. 1343) based on their actions in procuring a fraudulent mortgage during an FBI sting operation. Javell was sentenced to 12 months and one day in prison. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Javell argued the district court violated Bruton, and Javell’s Sixth Amendment rights by admitting the post-arrest statements made by Arroyo and by failing to properly instruct the jury about the rules of non-imputation. According to Javell, Arroyo’s post-arrest statements directly implicated Javell and had the jury not heard those statements, Javell would not have been convicted. Noting a “plethora” of other evidence, including recordings, the court rejected the argument. View "United States v. Javell" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs brought this suit in Minnesota state court challenging the foreclosure of the mortgage of their home. The Bank defendants removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), as did the PFB defendants. The district court granted the motions to dismiss and plaintiffs appealed. The court held that the lack of any factual allegations regarding PFB rendered plaintiffs' complaint deficient and the district court did not err in dismissing it for failure to state a claim. The court also held that the district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' claims against the Bank, finding no merit in plaintiffs' claims. View "Butler, et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al." on Justia Law

The target witness learned in 2009 that the IRS had opened a file on him, and that an IRS special agent and DOJ tax division prosecutor were assigned to investigate whether he used secret offshore bank accounts to evade income taxes. Two years later, a grand jury issued a subpoena requiring that he produce all records required to be maintained pursuant to 31 C.F.R. 1010.420 relating to foreign financial accounts that he had a financial interest in, or signature authority over. The requested records are required under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. The Government argued that the Required Records Doctrine overrides the Fifth Amendment privilege. The district court quashed the subpoena, concluding that the required records doctrine did not apply because the act of producing the required records was testimonial and would compel the witness to incriminate himself. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding the Doctrine applicable. View "In re: February 2011-1 Grand Jury Subpoena" on Justia Law

The procedural background of the extensive litigation underlying this case was discussed in Madsen IV. Following the Supreme Court's decision in that case, Appellant Nancy Madsen filed a new complaint alleging grounds for the same relief that was sought by the earlier complaint. The new complaint was dismissed as barred by res judicata, and this appeal followed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the litigation preceding the filing of Appellant's new action definitively resolved her claims and erected a res judicata bar to any subsequent complaint raising claims that could have and should have been raised in that litigation. View "Madsen v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

This case involved unanswered questions of Georgia law that are central to this appeal. Because these questions are determinative of the case and there are no controlling precedents from the Supreme Court of Georgia, the court respectfully certified the following questions for resolution: (1) Whether a security deed that lacks the signature of an unofficial witness should be considered "duly filed, recorded, and indexed" as required by O.C.G.A. 44-13-33, such that a subsequent hypothetical bona fide purchaser would have constructive notice when the deed incorporates the covenants, terms, and provisions of a rider that contains the attestations required by O.C.G.A. 44-13-33 and said rider was filed, recorded, and indexed with the security deed; and (2) If the answer to question one was in the negative, whether such a situation would nonetheless put a subsequent hypothetical bona fide purchaser on inquiry notice. View "Gordon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Vanderbilt sued to foreclose against appellees for defaulting on their installment payments on a mobile home and appellees responded by claiming that they had been released from any underlying debt on the retail installment contract. Intervenors claimed that Vanderbilt, CMH, and their parent company CHI, had filed false liens on their land as collateral for appellees' retail installment contract. The court affirmed the judgment and award of damages with respect to intervenors' claims. The court reversed and remanded the judgment as to Vanderbilt's claims against appellees, as well as appellees' counterclaims. View "Vanderbilt Mtge. and Fin. Inc. v. Flores, et al." on Justia Law

Missouri Bank sued OneBeacon for breach of contract and vexatious refusal to pay. The court held that the district court did not err by granting summary judgment for Missouri Bank on its breach-of-contract claim and rejected OneBeacon's claim that it did not breach Insuring Agreement (D) by denying Missouri Bank's claim because Insuring Agreement (D) did not cover losses resulting from fraudulent faxes. The court also held that the district court's finding that OneBeacon had reasonable cause to deny Missouri Bank's vexatious refusal to pay claim was not clearly erroneous. View "Missouri Bank and Trust Co. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co." on Justia Law