Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Townsend signed a note and a mortgage to purchase a condominium. After Townsend defaulted, HSBC sought foreclosure under Illinois law. Representing himself, Townsend answered the complaint. HSBC moved for summary judgment, submitting evidence of default; that Townsend owed $141,425.65; and that HSBC owned the note and mortgage. Townsend failed to respond. The court entered a judgment of foreclosure, an order finding that Townsend owed $143,569.65, and an order providing for judicial sale if Townsend did not pay before the redemption period expired. The court wrote that the judgment was “a final and appealable order” that was “fully dispositive” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), but retained jurisdiction to enforce or vacate (in the event of reinstatement) the judgment. The court acknowledged that it might have to hold a hearing to confirm the judicial sale under Illinois law and could decide not to confirm, if appropriate parties did not receive proper notice, if sale terms were unconscionable, if the sale was conducted fraudulently, “or … justice was otherwise not done.” The Seventh Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The judgment of foreclosure and judicial sale posed no imminent threat of irreparable harm to Townsend. His interests are protected under Illinois law. Because entry of the Rule 54(b) judgment compelled Townsend to appeal when he did, the court ordered that costs on appeal be assessed against HSBC. View "HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Townsend" on Justia Law

In 2003, the Meyers signed a revolving credit note and agreement and later signed term notes and loan agreements with U.S. Bank, to finance their swine production business. In 2006, the Meyers transferred all their business assets to a revocable trust, naming themselves as grantors and trustees. The revolving credit loan went into default in 2008. U.S. Bank agreed not to exercise its default rights. The lending relationship continued until the Meyers withheld proceeds from the sale of collateral (hogs). U.S. Bank filed suit; the Meyers sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2010. In 2011 the Meyers, individually, sued U.S. Bank, alleging breach of contract, fraud, violations of the Nebraska Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal. The Trust then commenced another suit, alleging that U.S. Bank tortiously interfered with the Trust’s contractual relations with a feed supplier. The district court granted summary judgment and imposed a $5,000 sanction against the Trust and its attorneys. The Trust appealed. U.S. Bank sought additional sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38, arguing that appeal was frivolous. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the rulings, held that appeal was not frivolous but was frivolously argued, and granted double costs as a Rule 38 sanction. View "David M. Meyer & Nancy R. Meyer Trust v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n" on Justia Law

In "Vinings Bank v. Brasfield & Gorrie, LLC," (759 SE2d 886 (2014)), the Court of Appeals affirmed, among other rulings, the trial court’s determination that Vinings Bank was not entitled to summary judgment with regard to a counterclaim for conversion brought against the Bank by Brasfield & Gorrie, LLC ("B&G"). This case stemmed from a defaulted $1.4 million business loan. The bank made the loan to Wagner Enterprises, Inc., which used as collateral, a security interest in all of its accounts and accounts receivable, including Wagner's contract to provide drywall services for general contractor B&G. Wagner defaulted on the loan, and the Bank filed suit against B&G seeking to collect on Wagner's accounts receivable. B&G counterclaimed for conversion, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The bank appealed the denial of its motion. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. In affirming the trial court's judgment, the Court of Appeals did not consider whether B&G had any right to assert a counterclaim against the bank for conversion of funds due to Wagner's subcontractors. The Supreme Court found that B&G had no direct relationship with the Bank, B&G was not, itself, a subcontractor of Wagner entitled to any of Wagner's funds, B&G did not have direct contractual relationships with any of Wagner's subcontractors, and B&G had no fiduciary relationship with any of Wagner's subcontractors. Furthermore, there was no evidence that Wagner or Wagner's affected subcontractors assigned B&G any of their rights. "Therefore, even if we assume without deciding that funds in [Wagner's] account were held in a constructive trust for the benefit of [Wagner's] subcontractors, B&G is not the party to assert those rights and had no standing to do so." View "Vinings Bank v. Brasfield & Gorrie, LLC" on Justia Law

Rogers’s 2005 mortgage on her Minnesota home was executed in favor of Countrywide and it listed Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as the mortgagee. In 2008, MERS transferred its interest in the mortgage to a securitized mortgage trust by assigning the mortgage to Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificate holders. Bank of New York was party to a Pooling and Servicing Agreement between various entities. According to Rogers, that Agreement governed the mortgage trust and required “that all mortgages to be included in the corpus of the Mortgage Trust were to be transferred into the Mortgage Trust between June 1, 2005 and August 8, 2005.” In 2012, Bank of New York commenced foreclosure proceedings on Rogers’s house, and purchased the house at a sheriff’s sale. Rogers sought a declaratory judgment that the foreclosure was invalid, claiming that the 2008 assignment of her mortgage to the trust violated the Agreement. The district court dismissed, holding Rogers did not have standing to challenge the foreclosure on the ground that the defendants violated an agreement to which Rogers was not party. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding that Rogers lacked standing. View "Rogers v. Bank of America, N.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant seeking a declaration that it had a superior lien on funds to which Defendant also claimed an entitlement. Plaintiff brought two counts against Defendant, one requesting a declaration that Plaintiff was entitled to the immediate release and receipt of all funds at issue and the other alleging conversion. Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and for failure to join an indispensable party. The Court of Chancery dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding (1) Plaintiff’s application for declaratory relief should be heard in superior court because that court has the power and ability to resolve a lien dispute and because Plaintiff has an adequate and complete remedy at law; and (2) Plaintiff’s second count for conversion asserts a legal right and implicates a legal remedy, and therefore, the Court of Chancery lacks subject matter jurisdiction to address it. View "The Bancorp Bank v. Cross & Simon, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2011 Lehman filed suit, claiming Gateway was obliged to make good on mortgage loans that Lehman’s subsidiary purchased almost 10 years earlier from Arlington Capital. In 2007 contracts, Arlington agreed to indemnify Lehman for losses on those loans. The following year, Arlington sold its assets to Gateway. The district court held that although it was clear Arlington was liable to Lehman on three loans, it was unclear whether Gateway was liable for Arlington’s debts and a trial was necessary to determine whether a de facto merger had taken place between Gateway and Arlington. After considering the evidence, the court concluded that a de facto merger had occurred and held Gateway for $450,000 plus interest. The Third Circuit affirmed. Gateway violated FRCP 10 when it failed to include in the appellate record a transcript necessary to evaluate its principal claim, so that claim forfeited. Gateway’s other claims lacked merit. View "Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc v. Gateway Funding Diversified Mortg. Servs., LP" on Justia Law

In 2013, the Superior Court granted Branch Banking and Trust Company's ("BB&T") motion for summary judgment on its foreclosure and breach of contract claims. In 2014, the Superior Court entered a final judgment order awarding damages to BB&T. The Eids failed to file a timely notice of appeal of thatorder. Instead, a little over two months after the entry of the final judgment order, the Eids filed a motion with the Superior Court under Rule 60(b) seeking vacatur of the final judgment order, contending that their counsel never received actual notice of the final judgment order. The Superior Court granted the Eids' motion to vacate. Then trial court entered a new final judgment order from which the Eids could file a timely notice of appeal. BB&T filed an appeal from the Superior Court's grant of the Rule 60(b) motion to vacate, and the Eids filed a cross-appeal of the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of BB&T. BB&T raises three issues on appeal: (1) that pursuant to Rule 77(d), the trial court lacked authority to grant the motion to vacate the final judgment order; (2) that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it applied a vague and undefined "interest of justice" standard to the motion to vacate; and (3) that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion to vacate because the Eids failed to establish that they were entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1) or (b)(6). On cross-appeal, the Eids also raised three issues: (1) that BB&T lacked standing to institute a foreclosure; (2) that the affidavit supporting the motion for summary judgment was defective; and (3) that BB&T failed to demonstrate that there were no genuine issues of material fact. After review, the Supreme Court agreed with BB&T that the trial court improperly granted the motion to vacate the final judgment, and reversed that decision. View "Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Eid" on Justia Law

In 2007, MTB Enterprises, Inc. obtained a $17 million construction loan from financial institution ANB Financial. ANB thereafter failed, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation transferred the construction loan to ADC Venture 2011-2, LLC. In 2012, MTB filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho against ADC Venture alleging that ADC Venture assumed the obligations of ANB Financial and was therefore liable for breach of contract and damages from MTB’s failed construction venture. The district court dismissed MTB’s claims. The Ninth Circuit dismissed MTB’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding (1) the rule set forth in the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 that a claimant must sue in the district court where the failed bank’s principal place of business was located or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is a jurisdictional limitation on federal court review; and (2) because the United States District Court for the District of Idaho lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case from the start, the case must be dismissed. View "MTB Enters., Inc. v. ADC Venture 2011-2, LLC" on Justia Law

The Boyces signed a $1.155 million promissory note payable to Pacific Mortgage, secured by a deed of trust on their Santa Barbara house. Pacific Mortgage endorsed the note to Option One, which endorsed the note in blank and put it in a mortgage investment pool, of which Wells Fargo was trustee. Pacific Mortgage assigned the deed of trust to Option One. The trust deed was later assigned to Wells Fargo. Boyces stopped making payments and filed an emergency bankruptcy petition to stay foreclosure. Wells Fargo moved for relief from the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court inspected the note and allonges; found a valid "chain of control and title of the note,” rejecting a claim that the assignment was invalid; and granted relief from the stay. The district court affirmed. Wells Fargo purchased the property at the trustee's sale and filed suit to evict the Boyces. The court rejected claims that the mortgage was invalid and that Wells Fargo did not perfect title and granted summary judgment for Wells Fargo, which sold the property. The Boyces filed claims for wrongful foreclosure, violation of the Unfair Practices Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, 17200), and quiet title. The court of appeal affirmed dismissal, citing res judicata and collateral estoppel. View "Boyce v. T.D. Serv. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant National Credit Union Administration Board ("NCUA") appealed the district court's order dismissing as untimely its complaint against defendants-appellees Barclays Capital Inc., BCAP LLC, and Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC. This case arose from the failure of two of the nation's largest federally insured credit unions: U.S. Central Federal Credit Union and Western Corporate Federal Credit Union. The NCUA was appointed conservator and later as their liquidating agent. The NCUA determined that the Credit Unions had failed because they had invested in residential mortgage-backed securities ("RMBS") sold with offering documents that misrepresented the quality of their underlying mortgage loans. The NCUA set out to pursue recoveries on behalf of the Credit Unions from the issuers and underwriters of the suspect RMBS, including Barclays, and began settlement negotiations with Barclays and other potential defendants. As these negotiations dragged on through 2011 and 2012, the NCUA and Barclays entered into a series of tolling agreements that purported to exclude all time that passed during the settlement negotiations when "calculating any statute of limitations, period of repose or any defense related to those periods or dates that might be applicable to any Potential Claim that the NCUA may have against Barclays." Significantly, Barclays also expressly made a separate promise in the tolling agreements that it would not "argue or assert" in any future litigation a statute of limitations defense that included the time passed in the settlement negotiations. After negotiations with Barclays broke down, the NCUA filed suit, more than five years after the RMBS were sold, and more than three years after the NCUA was appointed conservator of the Credit Unions. Barclays moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on several grounds, including untimeliness. Barclays initially honored the tolling agreements but argued that the NCUA's federal claims were nevertheless untimely under the Securities Act's three-year statute of repose, which was not waivable. While Barclays's motion to dismiss was pending, the district court in a separate case involving different defendant Credit Suisse, granted Credit Suisse's motion to dismiss a similar NCUA complaint on the grounds that contractual tolling was not authorized under the Extender Statute. Barclays amended its motion to dismiss asserting a similar Extender Statute argument. The district court dismissed the NCUA's complaint, incorporating by reference its opinion in Credit Suisse. The NCUA appealed, arguing that its suit was timely under the Extender Statute. The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded: "while it is true that the NCUA's claims are outside the statutory period and therefore untimely, that argument is unavailable to Barclays because the NCUA reasonably relied on Barclays's express promise not to assert that defense." View "National Credit Union v. Barclays Capital" on Justia Law