Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

BMD was a subcontractor for Industrial, a subcontractor for Walbridge, the general contractor for construction of a factory near Indianapolis. Fidelity was surety for Industrial’s obligations to BMD. The project proceeded for about a year before the manufacturer declared bankruptcy. Walbridge failed to pay Industrial, Industrial failed to pay BMD, and Fidelity refused to pay BMD, which sued Fidelity on the bond. Their subcontract conditioned Industrial's duty to pay on its own receipt of payment. The district court held that the pay-if-paid clause required Industrial to pay BMD only if Industrial received payment from Walbridge, rejecting an argument that it controlled only the timing of Industrial's obligation. The court held that pay-if-paid clauses are valid under public policy and that Fidelity could assert all defenses of its principal. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The subcontract expressly provides that Industrial's receipt of payment is a condition precedent to its obligation; it could have stated that BMD assumed the risk of the owner’s insolvency, but additional language was not necessary. Pay-if-paid clauses are valid under Indiana law and, under surety law, Fidelity may assert all defenses of its principal. Industrial was never obligated to pay BMD; BMD may not recover on the bond. View "BMD Contractors, Inc. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. of MD" on Justia Law

Earl and Nawana Wallace (the Senior Wallaces) borrowed $15,789 from Pinnacle Bank - Wyoming to finance a vehicle the Senior Wallaces purchased for their son and his wife (the Junior Wallaces). The collateral for the loan was the vehicle the Senior Wallaces bought for and titled in the Junior Wallaces' names. To that end, the Junior Wallaces signed a third party security agreement pledging the vehicle as collateral. The Junior Wallaces subsequently filed a bankruptcy petition. The bankruptcy trustees eventually sold the vehicle to benefit the bankruptcy estate. The Senior Wallaces thereafter stopped making payments on the loan. Pinnacle then filed a complaint seeking damages in the amount of the principal due on the note. The district court granted Pinnacle's motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that none of the Senior Wallaces' asserted defenses excused them from meeting their loan obligation. View "Wallace v. Pinnacle Bank - Wyo." on Justia Law

Fred and Nancy Eagerton appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Vision Bank in the bank's action seeking to enforce the Eagertons' obligations under certain guaranty contracts. "Dotson 10s, LLC" was organized to operate a tennis club in Fairhope. Dotson 10s executed a note and security agreement with Vision Bank, and the bank obtained in exchange, unlimited personal guarantees from John and Elizabeth Dotson, and limited guarantees from the Eagertons. The Dotsons executed a second loan to which the Eagertons were not a party. The Dotsons defaulted on both loans, and the bank sued the Dotsons as the primary obligors, and the Eagertons as personal guarantors. Dotson 10s then filed for bankruptcy protection. Part of the reorganization plan provided in part that the two loans would be combined and paid in full. Dotson 10s subsequently defaulted on the bankruptcy plan. The properties were foreclosed and sold, with the proceeds applied to the consolidated loan. The circuit court then entered a partial summary judgment in favor of the bank against Dotson 10s, but denied the motion as to the Eagertons. The bank argued that the Eagertons were still responsible under their guaranty contracts for the deficiency remaining on the consolidated loan. The Eagertons argued that the creation of the consolidated loan without their knowledge or consent, operated to discharge them from any further obligations under their guaranty contracts. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed, and reversed the circuit court's judgment in favor of the bank, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Eagerton v. Vision Bank " on Justia Law

In 2002 Bell established mutual funds and raised about $2.5 billion for investment. Most of the firms to which the funds routed money were controlled by Petters. He was running a Ponzi scheme. There was no inventory. New investments paid older debts, with some money siphoned off for personal use. When Petters was caught in 2008, the funds collapsed; about 60% of the money was gone. The funds' bankruptcy trustee filed suit against the funds' auditor, alleging negligence. The district court dismissed without deciding whether the auditor had acted competently, invoking the doctrine of in pari delicto, based on Bell's knowledge of the scheme. The Seventh Circuit vacated, noting that Bell was not stealing funds and that the extent of his knowledge cannot be determined at this stage. An allegation that Bell was negligent but not criminally culpable in 2006 and 2007 makes the claim against the auditor sufficient. View "Peterson v. McGladrey & Pullen, LLP" on Justia Law

This case required the court to determine whether a mortgage company violated Hawaii state law when it did not publicly announce the postponement of a foreclosure sale of property owned by appellant, and if so, to ascertain the proper remedy for that violation. The court held that the lack of public announcement did violate Hawaii's nonjudicial foreclosure statute, and this defect was a deceptive practice under state law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's avoidance of the foreclosure sale. However, the court remanded to the bankruptcy court for a proper calculation of attorney's fees and damages under Hawaii Revised Statute 480-13. View "Kekauoha-Alisa, et al. v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., et al." on Justia Law

This case arose when Mirant, an energy company, sought to expand its European operations by acquiring nine power islands from General Electric. When the power island deal fell through, Mirant made payments pursuant to a guaranty and soon thereafter sought bankruptcy protection. Mirant, as debtor-in-possession, sued Commerzbank and other lenders in bankruptcy court to avoid the guaranty and to recover the funds Mirant paid pursuant to the guaranty. After Mirant's bankruptcy plan was confirmed MCAR, plaintiff, substituted into the case for Mirant. Commerzbank and other lenders, defendants, filed a motion to dismiss based on Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The district court subsequently denied defendants' motion to dismiss based on plaintiff's alleged lack of standing. Thereafter, the district court granted summary judgment for defendants. Both sides appealed. While the court agreed that the district court correctly determined that there was standing to bring the avoidance claim, the court vacated the judgment of dismissal because the district court erroneously applied Georgia state law rather than New York state law to the avoidance claim. View "MC Asset Recovery LLC v. Commerzbank A.G., et al." on Justia Law

In 2006 debtors sublet land from lessees on a 30-year recorded lease and purchased a three-story cottage on the land by bill of sale. The lease refers to removal of the structure upon termination of the lease and requires approval by the lessor of any liens or mortgages. The landowner consented to a mortgage on the cottage and leasehold. Two years later, debtors filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition and listed the cottage as real property, with a secured claim of $235,000. The Trustee sought to avoid security interests held by the bank and landowner, arguing that the cottage was a chattel so that a lien could only be perfected by filing a financing statement with the Ohio Secretary of State. The bankruptcy court ruled that the mortgage was valid, concluding that the cottage was a fixture. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. To avoid the security interest (11 U.S.C. 544) the trustee had to show that the cottage was chattel. The cottage is highly integrated with the land and unlikely to be moved or dismantled; there was no proof that the parties intended that it be chattel. Security interests in both the cottage and leasehold were properly secured. View "In re: Szerwinski" on Justia Law

Dr. Carroll Meador filed a complaint against Mississippi Baptist Health Systems, Inc. (MBHS), Trustmark National Bank (Trustmark), and Doe Defendants 1 through 10, for breach of fiduciary duties, interference with fiduciary duties, interference with contract rights, interference with prospective business advantage, intentional infliction of emotional distress, deceit, fraud, and retaliatory discharge. The complaint stemmed from the doctor's employment with MBHS and a large line of credit he obtained from Trustmark. A dispute between the parties ended with the bank suing the doctor for defaulting on the loan, and the doctor declaring bankruptcy. Several defendants sought to remove the case to the federal district court. The district court granted remand of the case, finding the federal bankruptcy proceedings in the case had been concluded and only state claims remained. Then Defendants Trustmark, MBHS and several codefendants filed a motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss. The doctor appealed the ultimate outcome of the trial court's decision in favor of Defendants. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to strike portions of the doctor's affidavit, and in denying Trustmark and MBHS' motions for summary judgment. The Court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Trustmark National Bank v. Meador" on Justia Law

In 2007, Appellants David and Mary Eldridge executed a promissory note and mortgage in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. In both the Note and the Mortgage, "JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A." was explicitly designated as the lender and payee, or entity to whom payment under the Note and Mortgage was due. Appellants voluntarily filed bankruptcy in 2009. In their amended statement of intentions, Appellants agreed to reaffirm the outstanding balance on the Note. Shortly thereafter, the Note went into default. Appellee Chase Home Finance Milwaukee initiated foreclosure proceedings in 2010, claiming to be the present holder of the Note and Mortgage. Chase Home Finance Milwaukee claimed to have acquired the Note and Mortgage by assignment from J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. in their motion for summary judgment filed several months later. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Bank, finding the Bank was the undisputed owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage. Accordingly, judgment was entered in favor of the Bank and Appellants' counterclaims were dismissed. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Appellants argued the trial court erred ruling in favor of the Bank. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no evidence in the record to support the Bank's contention that it was the holder of the Note. Therefore, the Court reversed the granting of summary judgment by the trial court and remanded the case back for further proceedings. View "J.P. Morgan Chase, N.A. v. Eldridge" on Justia Law

A Chapter 7 debtor instituted an adversary proceeding against Sallie Mae, Inc. (11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8)) to determine the dischargeability of a student loan (about $25,000). The bankruptcy court entered a default judgment against Sallie Mae and later denied a motion to set aside the judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court acted within its discretion in rejecting an argument of excusable neglect. It is unclear whether Sallie Mae had no reasonable policy in place to see that mail was delivered to appropriate personnel or simply failed to apprise the court of that policy.Sallie Mae was not entitled to notice of a hearing on the motion for default judgment. Service was proper; it was an internal decision to have Sallie Mae's chief operating officer work at a location other than its listed principal address.