Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against BOA and Wells Fargo alleging, among other claims, that BOA had violated Section 51.002(d) of the Texas Property Code and the Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA), Tex. Fin. Code Ann. 392.301(a)(8), 392.303(a)(2), and 392.304(a)(8). On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment for BOA. The court concluded that, even if section 51.002(d) authorizes a private cause of action, plaintiff fails to state a claim because she did not allege that BOA attempted to send her a timely notice of sale or to initiate foreclosure. Further, the court concluded that, irrespective of any statutory notice requirements, BOA did not violate section 392.301(a)(8) of the TDCA by threatening to foreclose; plaintiff failed to allege a violation of section 392.303(a)(2); and plaintiff failed to establish any of the elements required by section 392.304(a)(8). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Rucker v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

U.S. Bank National Association ("USB"), successor in interest to Bank of America, N.A., which was the successor by merger to LaSalle Bank, National Association, as trustee for Structured Asset Investment Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-4 ("the Trust"), and Bank of America, N.A. ("BOA"), separately appealed a $3.9 million judgment entered against them on trespass and wantonness claims asserted by Chester and Emily Shepherd. USB also appealed the trial court's judgment in favor of the Shepherds on its claims related to an alleged error in a mortgage executed by the Shepherds upon which the Trust had foreclosed. The Alabama Supreme Court reversed. "'Every single one of these cases . . . rejects the availability of negligence and wantonness claims under Alabama law under comparable circumstances to those identified by the [plaintiffs]. Every one of these cases undercuts the legal viability of [the plaintiffs' negligence and wantonness claims], and rejects the very arguments articulated by the [plaintiffs] in opposing dismissal of those causes of action. ... the mortgage servicing obligations at issue here are a creature of contract, not of tort, and stem from the underlying mortgage and promissory note executed by the parties, rather than a duty of reasonable care generally owed to the public. To the extent that the [plaintiffs] seek to hold defendants liable on theories of negligent or wanton servicing of their mortgage, [those negligence and wantonness claims] fail to state claims upon which relief can be granted.'" View "U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Shepherd" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his claim under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692k, as untimely. The court concluded that the district court erred in finding that the FDCPA violation “occurred” when defendant sent the restraining notice. The court held instead that where a debt collector sends an allegedly unlawful restraining notice to a bank, the FDCPA violation does not “occur” for purposes of Section 1692k(d) until the bank freezes the debtor’s account. Because the record is unclear as to when the freeze actually took place, the court vacated the judgment and remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Benzemann v. Citibank" on Justia Law

Brown owed student loan debt, which he alleges Van Ru Credit was retained to collect. A Van Ru employee left a voicemail at Brown’s business that stated the caller’s and Van Ru’s names, a return number, and a reference number. The caller asked that someone from the business’s payroll department return her call. Brown sued Van Ru for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692c(b), alleging that the voicemail was a communication “in connection with the collection of any debt” with a third party . The district court granted Van Ru judgment on the pleadings. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The voicemail left at Brown’s business was not a “communication” as defined in the Act. A communication must “convey[] . . . information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium,” and the voicemail message did not convey such information. View "Brown v. Van Ru Credit Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that she was the victim of an identity theft scheme perpetrated by employees of Chase, and seeks to hold Chase liable for this identity theft under the New York Fair Credit Reporting Act, N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. 380-1, 380-s. At issue was whether plaintiff's suit is preempted by the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq. The court held that 15 U.S.C. 1681t(b)(1)(F) preempts only those claims that concern a defendant’s responsibilities as a furnisher of information under the FCRA. The court concluded that, viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the complaint advances claims against Chase for identity theft under N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. 380‐l and 380‐s based on acts of identity theft perpetrated by Chase employees, as distinct from any erroneous or otherwise wrongful actions by Chase in furnishing information to consumer reporting agencies. These identity theft claims are not preempted because they do not concern Chase’s responsibilities as a furnisher. The court further concluded that, to the extent that plaintiff’s complaint seeks relief based on Chase’s erroneous or otherwise improper furnishing of information to consumer reporting agencies, those claims are preempted. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "Galper v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, alleging that Capital One violated certain provisions of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692–1692p, by attempting to collect on defaulted or delinquent credit card accounts that Capital One had acquired from HSBC. The district court dismissed plaintiff's amended complaint. The court concluded that it need look no further than the statutory text to conclude that, under the plain language of the FDCPA, a bank (or any person or entity) does not qualify as a “debt collector” where the bank does not regularly collect or attempt to collect on debts “owed or due another” and where “the collection of any debts” is not “the principal purpose” of the bank’s business, even where the consumer’s debt was in default at the time the bank acquired it. In this case, the amended complaint’s factual matter establishes that Capital One’s collection efforts in this case related only to debts owed to it and that debt collection is only some part of, and not the principal purpose of, Capital One’s business. Therefore, Capital One's activity, as alleged by plaintiff, is not the activity of a “debt collector” under the FDCPA, and plaintiff cannot state a claim under the Act. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Davidson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A." on Justia Law

Latoya Brown purchased a Mazda 6 from Dick Smith Nissan, Inc. through the dealer's salesman, Robert Hiller. The purchase was contingent on acquiring third-party financing. Due to continuing and unresolved issues with financing, Brown returned the vehicle to Dick Smith. The car was later repossessed and sold by Sovereign Bank with a deficiency against Brown. Brown filed a complaint against Dick Smith and Old Republic Surety Company, the surety on Dick Smith's licensing bond, alleging violations of the South Carolina Dealers Act. The trial judge, in a bench trial, found in favor of Brown and awarded damages plus interest as well as attorney's fees and costs. Dick Smith and Old Republic appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that any misconceptions that Brown had about her financing were caused by Sovereign Bank, not Dick Smith. Despite evidence in the record to support the trial judge's findings of fact, the Court of Appeals ignored those findings and substituted its own. By doing so, the Court of Appeals exceeded its standard of review. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial judge's decision. View "Brown v. Dick Smith Nissan" on Justia Law

Bank of America loaned Leipzig $960,000, secured by a deed of trust on a Brentwood, Tennessee residence. Leipzig assigned his rights in the residence to a trust, which leased it to Johannessen in 2010. The lease had a five-year term and an option to buy. Johannessen exercised that option in 2011, but otherwise did not act to obtain title. Leipzig stopped making payments. In 2013, Johannessen assigned his lease and option rights to Anarion; the residence was in foreclosure. Published foreclosure notices stated that Brock was a “substitute trustee” for purposes of the loan “by an instrument duly recorded.” Anarion alleges there was no such “instrument,” and, based on that putative “misrepresentation,” sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692. The court dismissed, holding that Anarion is not a “person” under the Act, which states that “any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this subchapter with respect to any person is liable.” The Sixth Circuit reversed, reasoning that section 1692a(3), defines “consumer” to mean “any natural person,” suggesting that, when Congress meant to refer only to natural persons, it did so expressly. The court noted that its decision does not mean that Anarion can bring suit under the FDCPA. View "Anarion Invs., LLC v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC" on Justia Law

Respondents, three married couples, obtained home equity lines of credit from Petitioners, a bank and its loan officer. Approximately four years later, Petitioners filed a putative class action alleging that these transactions were part of an elaborate “buy-first-sell-later” mortgage fraud arrangement carried out by Petitioners and other defendants. Petitioners alleged numerous causes of action, including fraud, conspiracy, and violations of Maryland consumer protection statutes. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Petitioners, concluding that the statute of limitations barred several of Respondents’ claims and that no Petitioner violated the Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan Law as a matter of law. The Court of Special Appeals reversed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Court of Special Appeals (1) erred in concluding that Respondents stated a claim upon which relief could be granted under the Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan Law; and (2) erred in concluding that it was a question of fact to be decided by the jury as to whether Respondents’ claims against Petitioners were barred by the relevant statute of limitations. View "Windesheim v. Larocca" on Justia Law

In 2004, CashCall, a licensed lender, issued Montgomery a consumer credit account. In 2011, CashCall sold that debt to GCFS for collection. In 2012, GCFS sold the debt to Mountain Lion. Neither GCFS nor Mountain Lion is a licensed finance lender under the Finance Lenders Law. These entities are also not institutional investors within the meaning of section 22340. Mountain Lion subsequently sued Montgomery for payment on the debt. Montgomery filed a cross-complaint challenging the validity of her debt under Financial Code section 22340(a), which provides that “A licensee may sell promissory notes evidencing the obligation to repay loans made by the licensee pursuant to this division or evidencing the obligation to repay loans purchased from and made by another licensee pursuant to this division to institutional investors, and may make agreements with institutional investors for the collection of payments or the performance of services with respect to those notes.” The court of appeal affirmed dismissal of her cross-complaint. The legislative history indicates no intent to prohibit the sale of debt to noninstitutional investors. View "Montgomery v. GCFS, Inc." on Justia Law