Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Respondent borrowed nearly $17 million from Appellant’s predecessor-in-interest. The loan was secured by real property located in Texas. The Guarantors entered into a guaranty agreement to pay any debt remaining if Respondent defaulted. When Respondent defaulted, the Texas property was sold at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale under Texas law. Appellant then sought a deficiency judgment against Respondent and the Guarantors under Nevada law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Respondent and the Guarantors, finding that Appellant’s nonjudicial foreclosure in Texas did not comply with the terms of Nev. Rev. Stat. 107.080. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.455(1), which permits a creditor or deed-of-trust beneficiary to bring an action for a deficiency judgment after the foreclosure sale or trustee’s sale held pursuant to section 107.080, does not preclude a deficiency judgment in Nevada when the nonjudicial foreclosure sale upon property located in another state is conducted pursuant to that state’s laws instead of section 107.080. Remanded. View "Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Windhaven & Tollway, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2001, representatives from the Moody Bible Institute of Chicago and Sysix Financial signed a master agreement, laying the groundwork for future leases of equipment from Sysix to Moody. In 2008, two lease schedules for computer items were executed; they appeared to have been signed by Moody’s vice president and Sysix’s president. Sysix assigned its interest in both leases to Rockwell, which acquired loans from PNB to finance the leases. PNB procured indemnification coverage for those loans from RLI in the form of a financial institution bond. Sysix’s president had forged the signature of Moody’s vice president on both lease schedules. Moody never agreed to either schedule nor did it ever receive any of the promised equipment. PNB notified RLI of its potential loss, but PNB itself soon went under. As receiver for PNB, the FDIC sued RLI. The district court granted summary judgment in FDIC’s favor. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the plain language of the bond covered FDIC’s losses The Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act limitations period applies,12 U.S.C. 1821(d)(14), so the suit was timely. View "Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. RLI Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The complaint alleged that in May 2010, a notice of default was recorded against plaintiffs’ Pasadena residence. In August 2011, a notice of trustee sale was recorded. Plaintiffs retained Rex Law to negotiate a loan modification with Wells Fargo, which agreed to continue the trustee sale scheduled to October 17, 2011. On October 17, 2011, a paralegal from the Rex Law firm spoke with Wells Fargo representative Munoz, who stated that plaintiffs were “under active review for a modification and, therefore, there no longer was a trustee [sale] date scheduled.” In fact, a sale date of December 16, 2011 was scheduled. The house was sold at that sale. On December 10, 2011, the same paralegal spoke with Munoz and told her that plaintiffs’ tax returns were available. Munoz instructed him to submit the returns, but said nothing about the upcoming sale. The trial court rejected plaintiffs’ claim of promissory estoppel. The court of appeal affirmed, noting that no promise was made and that plaintiffs had no equity in the property and, therefore, no detrimental reliance. View "Granadino v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are trustees under “Coogan Trust Accounts,” which are statutorily required accounts to preserve 15 percent of a minor’s gross earnings for artistic or creative services for the benefit of the minor until the minor turns 18 or is emancipated (Fam. Code, 6750.) They filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and others against Bank of America, alleging breach of written contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, and unlawful and unfair business practices. The complaint claimed that the bank made withdrawals from Cogan Trust Accounts, including for monthly service fees, without court approval. The trial court dismissed. The court of appeal reversed. A bank may not debit a Coogan Trust Account for service fees without court approval (section 6753 (b)). The state law prohibition on a debit by a national bank is not preempted by federal law. View "Phillips v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

Appellants Branch Banking & Trust Company ("BB&T"), Rusty Winfree, and Todd Fullington appealed a Circuit Court judgment in favor of Rex ("Sonny") and Claudene Nichols on the Nicholses' claims against the appellants, and on BB&T's counterclaim against the Nicholses. The dispute arose over loans made by BB&T's predecessor-in-interest, Colonial Bank. After a development loan was made, but before it could be paid back, Colonial became insolvent and entered receivership. BB&T purchased much of Colonial's assets, including the loan made to the Nicholses for development of their parcel. After refusing to extend the terms of the original Colonial loan, or to provide any additional funds to finish the development, the Nicholses stopped making payments on their loan and sued alleging fraud, reformation, negligence, wantonness, and breach of fiduciary duty against all appellants. Against BB&T, the Nicholses also alleged a claim of unjust enrichment and sought damages on a theory of promissory estoppel. After careful consideration, the Supreme Court concluded the circuit court erred in entering a judgment in favor of the Nicholses and on BB&T's counterclaim. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Nichols" on Justia Law

In 2007, Suarez, a 75-year-old widower from Mexico, opened a checking account at an Illinois Chase Bank. DeMarco, the branch manager, assisted him. The two became friends. Suarez was trying to sell his three acre property, listed for $1.8 million. DeMarco convinced Suarez to break his listing contract, indicating that he had a buyer. DeMarco told Suarez that he needed a home equity line of credit (HELOC) to complete the sale. DeMarco obtained a $250,000 HELOC, under Suarez’s name, secured by Suarez’s property. DeMarco caused the lender to transfer the proceeds into a joint checking account, which he opened in his and Suarez’s name. After the transfer, DeMarco withdrew $245,000 and deposited the funds into his personal account. After Chase terminated his employment, DeMarco transferred the funds into new accounts and spent most of the proceeds to pay off his credit card debt, improve his home and on cars and vacations. He used a small fraction of the money to pay off Suarez’s debts. Suarez later noted irregularities in his bank statement and contacted the FBI. DeMarco was convicted of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343 and sentenced to 48 months in prison. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to evidentiary rulings and to the sentence, claiming that the court erred by applying a two-level increase to his base offense level for abuse of a position of trust, U.S.S.G. 3B1.3, and the use of sophisticated means, U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1). View "United States v. DeMarco" on Justia Law

After voters in School District rejected a bond proposal to construct an addition to existing high school building, School District entered into a lease-purchase agreement with Bank, which agreed to finance the project. Appellants, residents and taxpayers in the school district, sought declaratory and injunctive relief contending that the agreement violated Neb. Rev. Stat. 79-10,105. The trial court denied relief, concluding (1) under section 79-10,105, lease-purchase agreements may be used to make school improvements without the voters’ approval if the project is not funded by bonded debt; and (2) School District in this case did not fund the project through bonded indebtedness. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellants’ claims were moot because, as of the time of this appeal, the addition had been completed, but the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine applied; and (2) section 79-10,105 does not prohibit a school district from entering into a lease-purchase agreement to finance a capital construction project if it has not created a nonprofit corporation to issue bonds for the school district, and because there was no evidence that this occurred in this case, School District did not violate section 79-10,105 by entering into the lease-purchase agreement with Bank. View "Nebuda v. Dodge County Sch. Dist. 0062" on Justia Law

In 2005, Lee, a Sevierville contractor, owed a substantial debt to Whaley, for loans that financed houses being built by Lee. Whaley proposed to recruit straw buyers for sham purchases of the properties. Eight straw buyers were referred to Bevins, a mortgage broker with whom Whaley had previously dealt. Whaley prepared the contracts and set the prices. Bevins prepared loan applications that falsely inflated the buyers’ incomes and assets and stated that they would bring funds to closing. The closings were conducted by Kerley’s title company. Although none of the buyers brought funds to the closings, Kerley signed HUD-1 forms, indicating that they did. The properties later went into foreclosure. The lenders incurred substantial losses. Lee and Bevins pled guilty and agreed to cooperate. The judge denied Kerley’s motion to sever, concluding that proposed redactions to Whaley’s statement remedied potential violation of Kerley’s Confrontation Clause rights and held that Whaley was not entitled to introduce his own hearsay statements. Both were convicted of money laundering, conspiracy to commit wire fraud affecting a financial institution and bank fraud, wire fraud affecting a financial institution, bank fraud, and making a false statement to a financial institution. They were sentenced to 60 months and 48 months imprisonment, respectively, and ordered to pay $1,901,980.31 in restitution. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions and Kerley’s sentence, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary rulings, and the court’s refusal to sever. View "United States v. Whaley" on Justia Law

In 2010, Bank filed a foreclosure action against Defendants for allegedly defaulting on a promissory note. The trial court granted Bank’s motion for summary judgment and issued a decree of foreclosure in Bank’s favor. Defendants appealed, asserting four assignments of error, none of which challenged the court’s conclusion that Bank had standing to bring the foreclosure suit. Rather than considering Defendants’ assignments of error, the court of appeals sua sponte considered the issue of standing and held that Bank lacked standing to bring this foreclosure action. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Bank had standing to file the foreclosure action against Defendants at the time that it filed the complaint in 2010. Remanded. View "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Horn" on Justia Law

The Barnes Banking Company (the "Bank") had been placed into Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") receivership in 2010. Three shareholders in Barnes Bancorporation (the "Holding Company"), parent of the failed bank, brought suit against the Holding Company and its officers and directors. The district court’s dismissal of their suit was on the basis that most of the claims advanced by the plaintiffs were owned solely by the FDIC under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 ("FIRREA"), and the remaining allegations were insufficient to state a claim. The shareholders appealed the district court's decision, but the Tenth Circuit agreed: because almost all of the plaintiffs’ claims asserted injury to the Holding Company that was derivative of harm to the Bank, those claims belonged to the FDIC. Furthermore, the one theory of recovery advanced by plaintiffs that identified claims not owned by the FDIC under FIRREA (which involves the alleged misappropriation of $265,000), was pled in too conclusory a fashion. View "Barnes v. Harris" on Justia Law