Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs obtained loans to purchase their home in 2005, each secured by a deed of trust. Wells Fargo had the senior lien, and Chase had the junior lien. Wells Fargo foreclosed on the property, but the proceeds were not enough to pay off Chase’s loan. About a year later, Chase sent plaintiffs a letter, stating that plaintiffs still “owe[d]” $67,002.04 and offering to accept $16,750.56 “as settlement for [their] loan balance.” The letter purported to offer a short window of opportunity to resolve the] delinquency before the debt was accelerated. In its final sentence, the letter disavowed any “attempt to collect a debt or to impose personal liability” that “was discharged.” Chase sent a similar second letter. Chase and PRS also made collection calls to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sued Chase and PRS on behalf of a potential class, claiming that Chase’s right to enforce its loan against them personally had been extinguished and that defendants’ letters and calls were misleading for implying that the debt was still owed. Plaintiffs cited California’s Rosenthal Act, Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692. The trial court dismissed. The court of appeal held that a borrower may sue the debt collector under the FDCPA and may sue the junior lienholder or its debt collector under the Rosenthal Act and UCL, but may not sue for violations of CLRA. View "Alborzian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Despite having only a few hundred dollars in her checking account at SunTrust Bank, Appellant cut herself a check for nearly $10,000, resulting in a sizable overdraft. SunTrust hired a Maryland law firm, Mitchell Rubenstein & Associates (MR&A) to bring a debt collection suit. MR&A filed suit on SunTrust’s behalf in a general district court in Virginia. The general district court entered judgment in favor of MR&A. Appellant subsequently filed a complaint against SunTrust and MR&A (collectively, Appellees), alleging that Appellees violated Maryland consumer protection laws and that MR&A violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The federal district court dismissed Appellant’s suit for failure to state a claim. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that the counts alleged in Appellant’s complaint failed to state a claim for relief. View "Elyazidi v. SunTrust Bank" on Justia Law

Exactly three years after borrowing money to refinance their home mortgage, the Jesinoskis sent the lender a letter purporting to rescind the transaction. The lender replied, refusing to acknowledge the rescission’s validity. One year and one day later, the Jesinoskis filed suit, seeking a declaration of rescission and damages. The district court entered judgment on the pleadings, concluding that a borrower can exercise the Truth in Lending Act’s right to rescind, 15 U. S. C.1635(a), (f), only by filing a lawsuit within three years of the date the loan was consummated. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The unanimous Supreme Court reversed. A borrower exercising his right to rescind under the Act need only provide written notice to his lender within the 3-year period, not file suit within that period. Section 1635(a)’s language: a borrower “shall have the right to rescind . . . by notifying the creditor . . . of his intention to do so,” indicates that rescission is effected when the borrower notifies the creditor of his intention. The statute says nothing about how that right is exercised and does not state that rescission is necessarily a consequence of judicial action. View "Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-respondent Sharon McGill sued defendant-appellant Citibank, N.A. for unfair competition and false advertising in offering a credit insurance plan she purchased to protect her Citibank credit card account. She brought claims under California’s unfair competition law (UCL), false advertising law (FAL), and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), seeking monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive relief to prevent Citibank from engaging in its allegedly unlawful and deceptive business practices. Citibank petitioned to compel McGill to arbitrate her claims based on an arbitration provision in her account agreement. The trial court granted the petition on McGill’s claims for monetary damages and restitution, but denied the petition on the injunctive relief claims. Citibank appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the case for the trial court to order all of McGill’s claims to arbitration. View "McGill v. Citibank" on Justia Law

In 2011, Schriener obtained a residential mortgage from Quicken Loans that was secured by a deed of trust. Quicken Loans acquired the deed of trust that the parties used from Wolters Kluwer Financial Services, Inc. for a fee. Quicken Loans assisted Wolters Kluwer in preparing the deed of trust by providing necessary information. The deed of trust, however, was not written or reviewed by an attorney licensed to practice law in Missouri. In connection with Schriener’s residential mortgage, Quicken Loans charged him an “origination charge” of $575.00 and “adjusted origination charges” of $1,705.63. These charges are reflected on the parties’ HUD-1 settlement statement. The HUD-1 did not list a fee for the preparation of the deed of trust. Schriener filed a putative class action, alleging that Quicken Loans improperly engaged in law business under Mo. Rev. Stat. 484.020; violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. 407.010; and was unjustly enriched. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, based on Shriener’s concession that Quicken did not charge him for the deed of trust. View "Schriener v. Quicken Loans, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sought to rescind a loan she entered into with the trustee of a mortgage investment trust, and the district court granted rescission, finding that the mortgaged property was plaintiff's "principal dwelling" and the trustee failed to give plaintiff adequate notice of her right to rescind. In this case, the trustee failed to comply with two requirements of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1635, and a related regulation where he instructed plaintiff to sign simultaneously the loan documents and a postdated waiver of her right to rescind the transaction and the trustee failed to give plaintiff two copies of the notice of her right to rescind. The court concluded that the record fairly supports the district court's findings of fact; plaintiff was entitled to rescission because the trustee failed to give plaintiff clear and conspicuous notice of her right to rescind; but the district court lacked the discretion to deny plaintiff statutory damages, attorney's fees, and costs. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a determination of the amounts owed. View "Harris v. Schonbrun" on Justia Law

McIvor claims that she used TransUnion's online system to dispute a $242 debt alleged against her by Credit Control. She reported, "Creditor agreed to remove this account from my file. This account is settled." TransUnion reported McIvor's dispute to Credit Control as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681. McIvor alleged that Credit Control then "provided updated credit information regarding the Debt to [TransUnion] on April 20, 2013 without stating that [she] had disputed it," and TransUnion "in turn verified the Debt to [McIvor] on April 21, 2013." McIvor attached exhibits to the complaint showing screenshots of the investigation request, her updated credit file, and the resolution summary TransUnion provided. She alleged violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e(8) by “false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt.” The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal. McIvor neither plausibly alleged that the communication at issue was "false, deceptive, or misleading" nor that it was "in connection with the collection of any debt." View "McIvor v. Credit Control Servs, Inc." on Justia Law

With the threat of foreclosure looming on his home, Plaintiff sued Bank for failing to consider him for a mortgage loan modification, which a California class action settlement agreement required Bank to do before attempting to foreclose on Plaintiff’s home. The complaint alleged breach of contract, violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, 35A and 35B, violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. The First Circuit vacated in part and remanded Plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, holding (1) Plaintiff’s statutory causes of action fell short of stating a cognizable claim; but (2) the district court improperly converted Bank’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s contract-based claims into a motion for summary judgment, warranting a remand of those claims. View "Foley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Property Owners filed a lawsuit against a Mortgage Company, claiming that, by preparing deeds of trust and promissory notes for the Property Owners, the Mortgage Company (1) violated Mo. Rev. Stat. 484.010.2 and 484.020 by engaging in the "law business"; (2) committed an unlawful practice in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act; and (3) was unjustly enriched because it charged for services it did not perform or did not perform lawfully. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Mortgage Company. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the Property Owners did not dispute that the Mortgage Company did not charge a separate fee or vary its customary charges for preparation of legal documents, there were no disputed material facts, entitling the Mortgage Company to summary judgment as a matter of law. View "Binkley v. Am. Equity Mortgage, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action alleging that the Bank violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. 1963 et seq., by failing to post an external notice of fees on its ATMs. While the suit was pending but before class certification, Congress amended the EFTA to eliminate the external notice requirement. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claim and denied class certification. The court concluded that plaintiff has standing to bring her claim where Congress's determination that consumers were entitled to the fee information they need to decline a transaction before investing the time needed to initiate it protects a substantive, if small, right, and its deprivation is an injury-in-fact that allows plaintiff to pursue her claim; the Bank's attempt to "pick off" plaintiff's claim before the court could decide the issue of class certification fits squarely within the "relation back" doctrine, which saves her claim from mootness at this stage; the EFTA amendment eliminating the "two notice" provision does not apply retroactively to plaintiff's claim; and the EFTA amendment poses no more a barrier for putative class members than it does for plaintiff, for claims alleging violations before the amendment was enacted. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's denial of class certification and remanded for further considerations. View "Mabary v. Home Town Bank, N.A." on Justia Law