Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs sued Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. under the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act (MSMLA), Mo. Rev. State. 408.231-.241, alleging, for a putative class, that Countrywide charged them unauthorized interest and fees in violation of section 408.233.1. The district court granted summary judgment for Countrywide and plaintiffs appealed. The court held that because interest accrued for the two days before plaintiffs receive the loan discount and settlement/closing fee as a result of the alleged MSMLA violations, plaintiffs have raised a material issue of fact as to whether the alleged violations caused their loss. The court also held that because the document processing/delivery fee was not included in section 408.233's exclusive list of authorized charges, it violated the MSMLA. The court further held that because the document processing/delivery fee violated the MSMLA, the prepaid interest Countrywide collected on plaintiffs' loan was an additional violation of the statute. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Sheryl Crasco secured three payday loans from three different lenders. After the payor banks returned the checks for insufficient funds, the payday lenders assigned the checks to Credit Service, a collection agency. Credit Service filed an action against Crasco to recover the face value of the checks, a service fee per check, and bad check penalties of $500 per check. The county justice court concluded (1) Crasco must pay to Credit Service the face amount of each check and the service charge on each check, (2) Credit Service could not collect the bad check penalties, and (3) Crasco could recover damages for Credit Service's illegal pursuit of the bad check penalties. The district court reversed, determining that Credit Service could collect the bad check penalties. The Supreme Court reversed, holding a collection agency cannot charge bad check penalties for checks assigned to it from payday lenders when the payday lenders themselves are statutorily prohibited from charging such penalties. Remanded to determine whether the justice court incorrectly awarded Crasco damages.

This case originated with a misunderstanding regarding a $645 charge on the credit card bill of appellant. Chase Bank misidentified the basis for the charge but failed to respond to appellant's requests for information about it. After unsuccessfully attempting to get response from Chase Bank, appellant and his wife filed this action, alleging, inter alia, claims under the Fair Credit Billing Act (FCBA), 15 U.S.C. 1666-1666j and Oregon's Unlawful Debt Collection Practices Act (UDCPA), Or. Rev. Stat. 646.639-643. The court held that the trial court erred in holding that appellant failed to state a claim under the UDCPA. The court declined to certify appellant's proposed question to the Oregon Supreme Court regarding this claim because existing state precedent guided the court's decision. As to the FCBA claims, the trial court erred in requiring evidence of detrimental reliance to support actual damages and in limiting statutory damages for Chase Bank's multiple violations of the FCBA to a single recovery. Finally, the court held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying any award of attorneys' fees related to appellant's successful claim under the FCBA. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiff Blanca Gonzalez, and Monserate Diaz purchased a home as tenants in common. Diaz borrowed the downpayment from Cityscape Mortgage Corporation (Cityscape) and executed a note. Plaintiff did not sign the note. Plaintiff and Diaz secured that loan by mortgaging their home to Cityscape. Over time, Plaintiff fell behind on the payments and U.S. Bank obtained a foreclosure judgment. The trial court ordered that the home be sold to satisfy the judgment. Before the sheriff’s sale, Plaintiff entered into a written agreement with Defendant Wilshire Credit Corporation (Wilshire), U.S. Bank’s servicing agent. Plaintiff was represented by a Legal Services attorney who helped negotiate the agreement. Plaintiff missed four payments to Wilshire. A scheduled sheriff’s sale was cancelled when the parties entered into a second agreement. Plaintiff was contacted and dealt with directly; neither Wilshire nor U.S. Bank notified the Legal Services attorney. Although Plaintiff had not missed a single payment required by the second agreement, instead of dismissing the foreclosure action as promised, Wilshire sent a letter to Plaintiff noting that the second agreement was about to expire and that a new agreement needed to be negotiated to avoid foreclosure. Plaintiff contacted the Legal Services attorney. When the attorney questioned Wilshire, it could not explain how it had come to the arrears amount set in the second agreement, or why Plaintiff was not deemed current on the loan. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Wilshire and U.S. Bank engaged in deceptive and unconscionable practices in violation of the CFA. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Wilshire and U.S. Bank, finding that the CFA did not apply to post-judgment settlement agreements entered into to stave off a foreclosure sale. The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated plaintiff’s CFA claim. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the post-foreclosure-judgment agreements in this case constituted stand-alone extensions of credit. In fashioning and collecting on such a loan, a lender or its servicing agent cannot use unconscionable practices in violation of the CFA.

Plaintiffs Carol Metz and others filed a putative class action against fifty-five banks, including Fifth Third. The claims arose out of a Ponzi scheme involving bogus promissory notes. Five months later, attorney Daniel Morris filed a motion to intervene on behalf of his clients. Attached to the motion was a complaint similar to Metz's complaint except it was premised on promissory notes issued by different entities. The district court granted the motion to intervene. After the district court had dismissed Fifth Third with prejudice, Morris filed an intervenors' complaint against Fifth Third. The complaint was virtually identical to the complaint attached to the motion to intervene Morris filed earlier. The district court dismissed the claims with prejudice and granted Fifth Third's request for sanctions. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the imposition of sanctions, holding (1) the district court's imposition of sanctions under the bad faith standard was proper; (2) the record set forth sufficient evidence to support the district court's decision; (3) the district court properly sanctioned Morris under its inherent authority even though Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 also applied; (4) the district court did not deny Morris due process; and (5) the amount of fees awarded was not excessive.

Appellants appealed the district court's denial of certification of their putative class action in Mancini v. Ticketmaster; Stearns v. Ticketmaster, and Johnson v. Ticketmaster. Appellants' actions were directed against a number of entities that were said to have participated in a deceptive internet scheme, which induced numerous individuals to unwittingly sign up for a fee-based rewards program where amounts were charged to their credit cards or directly deducted from their bank accounts. The court held that Rule 23 did not give the district court broad discretion over certification of class actions and the district court erred when it based its exercise of that discretion on what turned out to be an inaccurate reading of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200-17210. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's denial of the motions for class certification of the UCL claims in Mancini and affirmed its determination that Mancini and Sanders were not proper representatives. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code 1750-1784, claim in Stearns; affirmed the district court's refusal to certify a class regarding the CLRA injunctive relief claims in Mancini; reversed the district court's dismissal of the Johnson action regarding the CLRA claim; and affirmed its refusal to certify a class regarding the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. 1693-1693r, claim in Mancini.

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly situated individuals, brought an action against Chase, alleging that it increased his interest rates retroactively to the beginning of this payment cycle after his account was closed to new transactions as a result of a late payment to Chase or another creditor. The court had previously issued an opinion reversing the district court's dismissal of most of plaintiff's federal and state claims. However, Chase sought Supreme Court review of the court's decision and the Supreme Court reversed with respect to the federal claim and remanded for further proceedings. Consequently, the court withdrew its prior opinion and, consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling, affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's first cause of action under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601-1615, for failure to notify of rate increase, as well as plaintiff's sixth cause of action for breach of contract for failure to notify him "of any change if required by applicable law." Although the Supreme Court's decision did not specifically address the court's ruling on plaintiff's state law claims, the court held: as Delaware law permitted the actions taken by Chase, the district court correctly concluded that plaintiff's second, third, and fourth state law causes of action were foreclosed; plaintiff's fifth cause of action failed to state a claim for consumer fraud under 6 Del. C. 2513(a); and plaintiff's seventh cause of action failed to state a claim for breach of an implied duty of good faith. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Plaintiffs sued Chambers Bank of North Arkansas for fraudulent concealment, claiming that the Bank failed to disclose to plaintiffs certain information regarding a real estate development. At issue was whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the bank on their fraudulent concealment claim. The court held that the district court properly found there to be insufficient evidence of special circumstances that obligated the bank to make disclosures to plaintiffs regarding their investment in the development. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the bank.

Plaintiff filed suit against, inter alia, U.S. Bank, N.A. (U.S. Bank) seeking to invalidate the foreclosure and sale of his home. Plaintiff alleged that the mortgage that the lender relied upon in foreclosing on his home was defective and therefore could not provide a valid basis for foreclosure under Minnesota law and that the lender violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601, et seq., by failing to provide required notice to plaintiff of his ability to cancel the transaction and by refusing to cancel the mortgage when plaintiff exercised his right to rescind the mortgage on those grounds. The court declined to reach plaintiff's Minnesota Statute 523.23 argument where plaintiff conceded he never cited to this provision to the district court at trial nor in his motion for new trial or amended verdict. The court also held that plaintiff's wife was authorized to receive the Notice of Right to Cancel on plaintiff's behalf; plaintiff cited to no evidence or legal authority that the second Notice of Right to Cancel was required under TILA; plaintiff had no standing to challenge the lender's failure to send the second notice to his former wife; and plaintiff had not overcome the rebuttable presumption of delivery of the required notice to him. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as trustee in trust for the registered holders of Ameriquest Mortgage Securities, Inc., appealed from a summary judgment entered in the district court in favor of Donald and Kim Pelletier on the bank's complaint for foreclosure. The district court concluded that Deutsche Bank had failed to dispute facts asserted by the Pelletiers demonstrating that they had asserted a right of rescission. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, but because the district court's order reached only the point of determining that the Pelletiers were entitled to rescission, the Court remanded for further proceedings to effectuate the rescission.