Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

A provision of the Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601, requires that consumers receive clear and conspicuous notice of the right to rescind within three days. Regulation Z requires that the consumer be given two copies of the notice at closing; failure to comply extends the time to rescind to three years, 13 C.F.R. 226.23(a)(3). When plaintiff closed the refinancing of his home in 2007 he signed a receipt for the notices, but he claims that he discovered, two years later, that he had only one copy. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the lender and title company. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that plaintiff presented enough evidence to survive summary judgment.

In 2008 debtor purchased a 2003 auto, financed the purchase, and granted the dealership a security interest that was transferred to a finance company and noted on the title. The security interest was later transferred to WFB, which did not record the assignment or note it on the title. Debtor defaulted in 2010 and WFB repossessed the vehicle on January 4, 2011. Debtor filed her chapter 7 petition on January 28, 2011. WFB filed a motion for relief from stay, claiming that debtor did not have equity in the vehicle and it was entitled to relief pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 361, 362, 363 and 554. The court concluded that WFB did not have a perfected security interest. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. Ohio law does require that assignment of a security interest in a motor vehicle be noted on the certificate of title for that interest to remain properly perfected. WFB has a properly perfected security interest in the vehicle and is the party entitled to enforce the security interest.

Gene Shields, an agent for State Farm Insurance Companies, opened an account with Bankcorp Bank. The owner of the account was State Farm. Shields's office manager subsequently diverted funds that were due to be deposited into the account, and Shields allegedly suffered at least $77,925 in losses as a result of over 100 overdrafts on the account. Shields sued Bancorp Bank for negligence in failing to notify him of overdrafts. Bancorp moved to compel arbitration based on the account's arbitration clause. The circuit court denied the motion to compel, and Bancorp appealed. At issue on appeal was whether the parties' 2005 agreement to modify the contract entered into by the parties in 1982 controlled when Shields signed the agreement but State Farm was not a party to the contract. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the 2005 agreement, which contained the arbitration provision, was not binding because the agreement was entered into in contravention of the rights of the account owner, State Farm.

When Rita Fix's son and daughter-in-law, Jeff and Marie, secured a loan from the First State Bank of Roscoe by obtaining a warranty deed for the property, the Bank assured Fix she could retain possession of the house. After Jeff and Marie conveyed the house and property to the Bank, the Bank sold the property and sought to remove Fix from the house. Fix sued the Bank for, inter alia, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Meanwhile, Fix, Jeff, and Marie were indicted on multiple criminal counts. The State attorney who brought the charges and who represented the Bank civilly offered to dismiss the criminal charges against Fix if she would deed the house back to the Bank. Fix then amended her complaint to include a claim of abuse of process against the Bank. The trial court granted summary judgment against Fix on her IIED claim. A jury then returned a verdict finding the Bank liable for abuse of process but awarded no damages to Fix. The Supreme Court reversed on the abuse of process claim, holding that the trial court provided the jury with the incorrect legal standard for the recovery of emotional damages. Remanded for a new trial.

The Army and Air Force Exchange Service issues credit cards to military personnel to purchase uniforms and other merchandise from post-exchange stores on military bases. During the relevant period balances for uniforms were interest-free. Plaintiff opened an account in 1997 and became delinquent in 2000. In 2009 He filed suit claiming that the interest rate on delinquent debt exceed that specified in the agreement. The Exchange the conducted an audit and adjusted the accounts of 46,851 individuals, including plaintiff, who received a refund. A second audit resulted in adjustments to accounts of an additional 103,320 individuals. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claim as moot and denied class certification. The Federal Circuit vacated. While plaintiff's individual claim was moot, it is unclear whether the claims of all class members were satisfied.

Husband obtained a purchase-money mortgage from Bank to invest in commercial real estate. Wife's signature was forged in executing the purchase-money mortgage. After Husband's death, Bank attempted to foreclose its mortgage, but Husband's Estate and Wife asserted Wife's fraudulent signature voided the mortgage. The district court (1) granted Bank summary judgment, concluding its purchase-money mortgage was superior to Wife's statutory dower interest and the Estate's other debts and charges; and (2) ordered any excess sale proceeds to be paid to the Estate. The court of appeals (1) affirmed the award of summary judgment; but (2) reversed the district court's determination that the foreclosure sale surplus be paid to the Estate, instead holding that Wife's statutory dower interest took priority over the Estate's other debts and charges. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, holding that a surviving spouse's dower interest, codified in Iowa Code 633.211 as to nonhomestead real property, was not subject to the debts and charges of the Estate of the spouse who died intestate.

First National Keystone Bank retained an independent accounting firm to audit its records at a time that members of the bank's management were fraudulently concealing the bank's financial condition. The accounting firm issued a clean audit concerning the bank. It was later discovered that the bank had overstated its assets by over $500 million. Upon investigation, the FDIC concluded that the law firm that represented the bank had engaged in legal malpractice. The FDIC settled its claims against the law firm. The accounting firm was later found liable to the FDIC in federal district court for a negligent bank audit. The accounting firm subsequently sued the law firm, alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and tortious interference with the accounting firm's contract to perform the audit. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the law firm. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the claims of the accounting firm against the law firm were, in reality, contribution claims rather than direct or independent claims and were, therefore, barred by the settlement agreement between the law firm and the FDIC.

Husband and wife operated a mortgage fraud scheme that bought residential properties and sold those properties to nominee buyers at inflated prices. They provided lenders with false information about buyers' finances, sources of down payments, and intentions to occupy the residences. The scheme involved 37 separate transactions and resulted in net loss of more than $700,000 to various lenders. After the scheme collapsed, they went bankrupt but were not immediately prosecuted. Wife worked as a nurse in a pediatric intensive care unit. Husband worked as a installer and technician. They raised their three children and became fully engaged in their community. On the day before the ten-year statute of limitations would have expired, the government charged them with wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and two counts of bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1344. They pled guilty to a single count of wire fraud, and were sentenced based on the 2010 USGS, wife to 41 months in prison, and husband to 63 months, and ordered to pay more than $700,000 in restitution. The Seventh Circuit remanded, stating that the sentencing judge failed to consider adequately unusually strong evidence of self-motivated rehabilitation. For this reason, we vacate their sentences

This case stemmed from the taking of property in downtown Los Angeles to comply with a federal court order to improve the quality of bus services and involved California's "quick-take" eminent domain procedure, Code of Civil Procedure 1255.010, 1244.410, where a public entity filing a condemnation action could seek immediate possession of the condemned property upon depositing with the court the probable compensation for the property. At issue was Section 1255.260's proper interpretation. The court of appeals in this case held that, under the statute, if a lender holding a lien on condemned property applied to withdraw a portion of the deposit, and the property owner did not object to the application, the lender's withdrawal of a portion of the deposit constituted a waiver of the property owner's claims and defenses, except a claim for greater compensation. The court found the court of appeal's conclusion was inconsistent with the relevant statutory language and framework. Therefore, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals.

Relator, on behalf of the United States, appealed the district court's dismissal of his qui tam complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The district court held that an earlier-filed complaint barred its consideration of relator's complaint under the first-to-file rule of the federal False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3730(b)(5). At issue was whether Section 3730(b)(5) required the first-filed complaint to meet the heightened pleading standards of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) for alleging fraud in order to bar a later-filed complaint. The court held that the earlier-filed complaint alleged the same material elements of a fraudulent scheme as relator's complaint, and that the earlier-filed complaint need not meet the heightened pleading standards of Rule 9(b) to allege facts sufficient to prompt a government investigation, and thus, to bar later-filed complaints under Section 3730(b)(5). The court also held that relator waived his argument that the case should not have been dismissed with prejudice.