Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

This case arose from a dispute between Gregory Garrabrants, the CEO of BofI Federal Bank (BofI), and Charles Matthew Erhart, a former internal auditor at BofI who acted as a whistleblower. Erhart copied, transmitted, and retained various documents he believed evidenced possible wrongdoing, some of which contained Garrabrants' personal and confidential information. Garrabrants sued Erhart for accessing, taking, and subsequently retaining his personal information. A jury awarded Garrabrants $1,502 on claims for invasion of privacy, receiving stolen property, and unauthorized access to computer data.However, the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reversed the judgment and remanded the case. The court found that the trial court made prejudicial errors in its jury instructions. Specifically, the trial court erred in instructing the jury that bank customers have an unqualified reasonable expectation of privacy in financial documents disclosed to banks. The trial court also erred in instructing the jury that Erhart's whistleblower justification defense depended on proving at least one legally unsupported element. The instructions given for Penal Code section 496 misstated the law by defining “theft” in a manner that essentially renders receiving stolen property a strict liability offense. Furthermore, the special instruction on Penal Code section 502 erroneously removed from the jury’s consideration the foundational issue of whether Garrabrants “owned” the data about him residing in BofI’s computer systems such that he could pursue a civil action under the statute. The court concluded that, in light of the record evidence, there is a reasonable possibility a jury could have found in Erhart’s favor on each of Garrabrants’ claims absent the erroneous instructions, making them prejudicial. View "Garrabrants v. Erhart" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana had to decide if the Thirteenth Judicial District Court erred by disallowing a stipulated agreement for entry of a consent judgment between American Express National Bank (Amex) and Jocelyn Born (Born), and subsequently dismissing the action with prejudice.Born had accumulated a debt of $20,754.69 on her American Express credit card that she failed to repay, despite Amex’s demands for repayment. The parties had entered into a stipulation and consent agreement where Born agreed to the entry of judgment for the amount of her debt, plus costs. After some payments by Born, the amount owed had reduced to $19,368.19. The District Court initially entered a consent judgment for the reduced amount but later the same day vacated the judgment and dismissed the litigation with prejudice.Amex appealed this decision arguing that the District Court misunderstood the nature of the stipulation and consent agreement and treated it as a "cognovit judgment" - a judgment entered in advance of legal action in case of default, rather than a "judgment on consent" - an agreed judgment entered after action is commenced.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana agreed with Amex's argument, finding that the stipulation was a valid consent judgment and constituted a contract between the parties. The court held that the District Court erred in vacating the judgment and abused its discretion by denying Amex's motion for relief. The court reversed the order of dismissal and remanded the matter for entry of a consent judgment as contemplated by the parties' stipulation. View "American Express v. Born" on Justia Law

In this case, Pamela Kathryn Conley appealed her sentence for bank fraud and aggravated identity theft. She argued that the district court incorrectly calculated her loss amount for the bank fraud offense, and that the court erred in accepting her guilty plea for aggravated identity theft.Conley had applied for loans at seven financial institutions using false employment and salary information, and in some cases, she forged the signatures of financial institution employees to create false lien releases for vehicles she used as collateral. She pled guilty to 24 counts of bank fraud and 4 counts of aggravated identity theft.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found that the district court had erred in calculating the loss amount for the bank fraud offense. The court vacated Conley's sentence for bank fraud and remanded for resentencing on those counts. The court determined that the district court had relied on disputed facts in the presentence report to calculate Conley's U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range for bank fraud, which was procedurally unreasonable.However, the court affirmed Conley's convictions for aggravated identity theft. Conley had argued that the court erred in accepting her guilty plea for this offense in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Dubin v. United States. But the appeals court found that any potential error in accepting the guilty plea was not plain or obvious under current, well-settled law. View "United States v. Conley" on Justia Law

In the state of California, an individual named Chad Grayot purchased a used vehicle from a car dealership with a contract that was later assigned to the Bank of Stockton. This contract included the Federal Trade Commission's 'Holder Rule' notice, which allows a consumer to assert against third party creditors all claims and defenses that could be asserted against the seller of a good or service. Grayot sought to hold the Bank responsible for refunding the money he paid under the contract based on the holder provision in the contract. The Bank argued that it could not be held responsible because it was no longer the holder of the contract as it had reassigned the contract back to the dealership. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Bank, accepting its argument. Grayot appealed this decision.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Third Appellate District reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that a creditor cannot avoid potential liability for claims that arose when it was the holder of the contract by later reassigning the contract. This interpretation of the Holder Rule is in line with the Federal Trade Commission's intent to reallocate any costs of seller misconduct to the creditor. The court sent the case back to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Grayot v. Bank of Stockton" on Justia Law

In this case, Eli Global, LLC, and Greg Lindberg appealed a summary judgment entered against them by the Mobile Circuit Court in Alabama. The dispute involved Eli Global's alleged failure to fulfill its obligations on a promissory note and Lindberg's alleged failure to fulfill his obligations on a guaranty of that promissory note. The promissory note and guaranty were part of an agreement to purchase a healthcare company. Eli Global and Lindberg also challenged the circuit court's award of attorney fees and expenses to the plaintiffs.The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the lower court's judgment finding Eli Global and Lindberg liable based on the promissory note and the guaranty, and its award of the principal amount plus interest due based on that liability. The court found that the promissory note was not a negotiable instrument under New York law, and even if it was, the plaintiffs were not required to prove who possessed the promissory note because Eli Global and Lindberg waived that argument in the lower court. In addition, the court found that one of the plaintiffs did not release his claims against Lindberg that were based on the guaranty.However, the court remanded the case back to the lower court to provide a more detailed explanation for the award of attorney fees and expenses. The court found that the lower court's order did not provide sufficient explanation on how it determined the award of attorney fees and expenses. The lower court was instructed to return its explanation to the Supreme Court within 42 days. View "Eli Global, LLC v. Cieutat" on Justia Law

In 2017, Plaintiffs-appellants Loreto and Mercedes Lagrisola applied for and obtained a loan from North American Financial Corporation (NAFC), secured by a mortgage on their residence. In 2021, the Lagrisolas sued NAFC, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, alleging NAFC was not licensed to engage in lending in the state of California between 2014 and 2018 and asserted violations of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 and Financial Code sections 22100 and 22751. The trial court sustained NAFC’s demurrer to the FAC without leave to amend, concluding that the allegations in the FAC were insufficient to establish an actual economic injury, necessary for standing under Business and Professions Code section 17200, and that there was no private right of action under Financial Code sections 22100 and 22751. The Lagrisolas appealed, arguing the trial court erred in its judgment. On de novo review, the Court of Appeal reached the same conclusions as the trial court, and accordingly, affirmed. View "Lagrisola v. North American Financial Corp." on Justia Law

Pacilio and Bases were senior traders on the precious metals trading desk at Bank of America. While working together in 2010-2011, and at times separately before and after that period, they engaged in “spoofing” to manipulate the prices of precious metals using an electronic trading platform, that allows traders to place buy or sell orders on certain numbers of futures contracts at a set price. It is assumed that every order is bona fide and placed with “intent to transact.” Spoofing consists of placing a (typically) large order, on one side of the market with intent to trade, and placing a spoof order, fully visible but not intended to be traded, on the other side. The spoof order pushes the market price to benefit the other order, allowing the trader to get the desired price. The spoof order is canceled before it can be filled.Pacilio and Bases challenged the constitutionality of their convictions for wire fraud affecting a financial institution and related charges, the sufficiency of the evidence, and evidentiary rulings relating to testimony about the Exchange’s and bank prohibitions on spoofing to support the government’s implied misrepresentation theory. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The defendants had sufficient notice that their spoofing scheme was prohibited by law. View "United States v. Bases" on Justia Law

Taptelis borrowed to purchase the property and executed a Deed of Trust (subsequently recorded) for the benefit of MERS. Taptelis defaulted on the loan. MERS executed an Assignment of Deed of Trust to Homeward. A Substitution of Trustee named Quality; Quality issued a Notice of Default and Election to Sell, asserting due diligence to contact Taptelis to assess his financial situation and explore options. Quality’s Notice of Trustee’s Sale, scheduled for December 4, 2020, was recorded in October.Taptelis challenged the foreclosure, alleging violation of the Homeowner Bill of Rights by filing the Notice while Taptelis had a loan modification application pending; failure to provide certain information before filing the Notice and submission of a declaration that was not based on reliable evidence; negligence; wrongful foreclosure; and violation of the Unfair Competition Law. Two days before the sale, Taptelis recorded a lis pendens.Quality’s Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale to Homeward was recorded. Homeward served notice to quit on Taptelis, who did not vacate. Homeward initiated an unlawful detainer suit. Reasoning that the unlawful detainer “can’t keep getting continued … for the other case,” the court concluded that Taptelis’s alleged loan modification application and lis pendens were irrelevant and awarded possession.The court of appeal reversed. Although recording a trustee’s deed is typically sufficient to raise a conclusive presumption of title under the sale as to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, Homeward purchased the property subject to Taptelis’s recorded lis pendens. Taptelis was not allowed to assert his defenses in the unlawful detainer trial. View "Homeward Opportunities Fund I Trust 2019-2 v. Taptelis" on Justia Law

On April 25, 2023, Discover Bank served a summons and complaint on the defendant alleging past due debt on a credit card. The defendant did not answer or otherwise appear. On May 25, 2023, Discover filed the summons and complaint, sheriff’s return of service, “affidavit of no answer,” and other documents supporting its motion for default judgment. In response, the district court filed a “Notice,” requiring Discover to serve a “Notice of Filing” of the complaint on the defendant and allow him 14 days from the date of the filing of the “Notice of Filing” to respond to the motion for default judgment. Discover then petitioned the North Dakota Supreme Court for a supervisory writ directing the court to vacate its order. The Supreme Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction, granted the petition, and directed the court to vacate its order. View "Discover Bank v. Romanick, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (“PDVSA”), an oil company wholly owned by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, entered into two Note Agreements and a Credit Agreement with the predecessor-in-interest to now-Plaintiff-Appellee Red Tree Investments, LLC (“Red Tree”). PDVSA became delinquent on its obligations under the contracts. Red Tree’s predecessor-in-interest accelerated the outstanding debt. Then Red Tree initiated these actions in Supreme Court, New York County, which Defendants removed to district court. PDVSA claimed that any further payment under the Agreements was impossible and should therefore be excused. The district court granted summary judgment against PDVSA on the grounds that PDVSA had failed to provide sufficient evidence that payment was impossible or in the alternative, that any impediment to payment was not reasonably foreseeable. It therefore entered judgment in favor of Red Tree and imposed post-judgment interest. On appeal, PDVSA contends that the district court erred in concluding that no reasonable trier of fact could find that payment was impossible or that U.S. sanctions were unforeseeable. PDVSA further asserts that the district court incorrectly calculated post-judgment interest.   The Second Circuit affirmed. The court agreed with the district court that payment by PDVSA was not impossible. Further, the court concluded that the district court did not err in its calculation of post-judgment interest. The court explained that under the plain language of the Note and Credit Agreements, the outstanding principal and interest that accrued prejudgment—including both default and ordinary interest—are subject to default interest post-judgment. View "Red Tree Investments, LLC v. PDVSA, Petróleo" on Justia Law