Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff obtained a mortgage in 1999 and refinanced four times over six years, each time pulling out more equity. The last refinancing and a mortgage obtained for a new house, (the first house was for sale), were based on documents inaccurately describing plaintiff's income and position. Plaintiff, who claimed to be unaware of the inaccurate information, defaulted on payments. The district court rejected his suit, alleging a violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A (unfair or deceptive practices), unjust enrichment, a violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and entitlement to rescission of the loan and an injunction ordering the removal of the loan from his credit history. The First Circuit affirmed dismissal of the covenant claim relating to one loan, the negligence claim, and the rescission/equitable relief claim, but vacated dismissal of the other claims. Whether plaintiff or the loan officer deliberately falsified the loan application and whether default was foreseeable are questions of fact suitable for trial.

Countrywide Home Loans, a mortgage holder on certain real estate, foreclosed its mortgage, took title to the property at a sheriff's sale, and then sold the property to a third party. Before these events, the property owners executed a promissory note in favor of Citizens State Bank. When the property owners failed to pay the note, Citizens Bank obtained a judgment in trial court, which was properly recorded. At the time Countrywide filed its foreclosure action, it did not name Citizens Bank as a party. After Countrywide discovered Citizens Bank's judgment lien on the property, Countrywide filed an action to foreclose any interest Citizen Bank may have had on the property. Citizens Bank filed a separate complaint seeking to foreclose its judgment lien. The trial court directed Citizens Bank to redeem Countrywide's mortgage or be barred from asserting its judgment lien. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court also reversed the judgment of the trial court but on different grounds, holding that because Citizen Bank's lien on the property was properly recorded and indexed and because Countrywide did not explain why the lien was overlooked, Countrywide failed to demonstrate that it was entitled to the remedy of strict foreclosure.

TCF National Bank (TCF) sued to enjoin a portion of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act (Act) of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, that would limit the rate some financial institutions could charge for processing debit-card transactions. Section 1075 of the Act, the Durbin Amendment, amended the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. 1693, et seq., by adding several provisions regarding debit-card interchange fees. TCF alleged that section 1693o-2(a)(2), (a)(4), and (a)(6) of the Act were facially unconstitutional because these provisions would require the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Board (Board) to set an interchange rate below the cost of providing debit-card services. TCF also alleged that these provisions arbitrarily exempted smaller issuers from the Board's rate regulations and thus violated TCF's due process and equal-protection rights under the Fifth Amendment. The court held that the challenged provisions in the Durbin Amendment survived rational basis review where "Congress's decision to link interchange fees to issuing banks' actual costs was reasonably related to proper legislative purposes: (1) to ensure that such fees were reasonable and (2) to prevent retailers and consumers from having to bear a disproportionate amount of costs of the debit card system." The court also held that the Durbin Amendment's distinction between larger and smaller issuers of debit-cards was rationally related to the government's legitimate interests in protecting smaller banks, which did not enjoy the competitive advantage of their larger counterparts and which provided valuable diversity in the financial industry. Therefore, the court held that TCF was not likely to prevail on its equal-protection argument. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of TCF's motion for a preliminary injunction.

Cach, L.L.C., alleging that it was an assignee of Bank of America, filed a complaint against Nathaniel Kulas seeking principal and interest on an unpaid credit card balance. The complaint stated that Kulas owed $6042 on the account. Cach then filed a motion for summary judgment, supporting its motion with affidavits and other documents alleging that the balance due on the account was $6042. In response, Kulas filed an objections to the summary judgment motion. The court found Kulas's responses were procedurally defective and granted Cach's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Cach's support for its assertions that it received an assignment of the account from the bank and that Kulas owed $6042 on the account was inadequate. Because Cach failed to properly establish each element of its claim without dispute as to material fact, the Court vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case.

Appellee First Community Bank loaned $175,000 to Catherine Warbington and two Warbington family trusts, listing the property in the trusts as security. After Catherine died, the bank later filed a foreclosure complaint, asserting that payments were not being made on the loan and naming as defendants the unknown heirs of Catherine, the trusts, the trustee of the trusts, and others. Later, a foreclosure judgment was entered finding that the parties before the court had consented to the judgment and were indebted to the bank for the principal amount. The heirs and trusts then filed a motion to vacate the foreclosure, asserting (1) that the judgment was void by operation of law because Bert Warbington had not been personally served as trustee, and (2) Bert was not named individually in the complaint though he was a known heir and as such Ark. R. Civ. P 4 and due process required the bank name him as a party. The circuit court denied the motion. On appeal, the Supreme Court found (1) the circuit court did not clearly err in finding from the evidence that there was personal service and (2) that the circuit court did not err in finding that Bert was an unknown heir. Affirmed.

Plaintiffs filed a purported class action as an adversary proceeding before the bankruptcy court alleging that their mortgage lender, Wells Fargo Bank N.A. ("Wells Fargo"), violated various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules by failing to disclose certain fees on the proof of claim it filed in plaintiffs' Chapter 13 bankruptcy case. At issue was whether the district court erred in affirming the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo on plaintiffs' claims that Wells Fargo violated the automatic stay provisions in 11 U.S.C. 362; their claims that Wells Fargo violated 11 U.S.C 506(b) and Bankruptcy Rule 2016 by failing to disclose the fees; and their objection to the proof of claim. The court considered each of plaintiffs' automatic stay violations under section 362 and held that Wells Fargo was entitled to summary judgment on each claim. The court concluded that bankruptcy courts have not uniformly reached a conclusion supporting the proposition that pursuant to section 506(b), Rule 2016, or both of these provisions, a secured creditor must disclose and obtain court approval of post-petition legal expenses. Therefore, the court held that these provisions were not violated when a creditor merely recorded costs it had incurred in association with a mortgagee's bankruptcy for internal bookkeeping purposes and made no attempt to collect the fees or otherwise add them to the debtor's balance. Accordingly, to the extent plaintiffs' disclosure claims relied on events that have occurred during the course of their Chapter 13 case, the district court did not err in affirming the bankruptcy court's order granting summary judgment. The court further held that Wells Fargo's failure to include the proof of claim fees on the proof of claim did not provide a valid basis for an objection; and as to this amount, plaintiffs have identified no reason why such amount was unenforceable. Therefore, Wells Fargo was entitled to summary judgment on this claim.

Washington residents who were consumers of allegedly illegal debt adjustment programs filed a class action lawsuit against Defendants Global Client Solutions, LLC (GCS) and Rocky Mountain Bank and Trust (RMBT). Defendants managed and held âspecial purpose accountsâ as part of their adjustment programs. Payments to consumersâ creditors were authorized from these accounts. When enough money accumulated in a consumerâs account, Defendants would attempt to use the funds to negotiate settlement with creditors on terms favorable to the consumer. Defendants charged consumers various fees for its services. GCSâ earnings came from the fees they charged directly to the special purpose account holders. RMBT did not receive fees, but benefited by holding Plaintiffsâ money without paying interest. In 2009, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a cease and desist order that required a reformation of RMBTâs banking practices. GCS subsequently stopped opening new accounts at RMBT. Later that year, Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against GCS and RMBT on behalf of all consumers who has special purpose accounts. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington certified three questions to the state Supreme Court regarding interpretation of state law in the Plaintiffsâ case. In response, the Supreme Court concluded that GCS is a âdebt adjusterâ and as such, is not exempt from liability under state law. Furthermore, the Court concluded that debt settlement companies that worked with GCS and RMBT are likely subject to the stateâs debt adjusting statute fee limits, depending on whether they are debt adjusters providing debt adjustment services.

Plaintiff filed a class action suit against JP Morgan Chase Bank ("Chase") alleging violations of Fla. Stat. 655.85 and unjust enrichment where she was charged a fee to cash a check as a non-account holder at Chase. At issue was whether the district court properly granted Chase's motion to dismiss both plaintiff's claims as preempted by the National Bank Act ("NBA"), 12 U.S.C. 21 et seq. The court affirmed dismissal where Fla. Stat. 655.85 was preempted by the Office of Comptroller of the Currency's ("OCC") regulations promulgated pursuant to the NBA where Congress clearly intended that the OCC be empowered to regulate banking and banking-related services. The court also held that because plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim relied on identical facts as her claim under the state statute, it too was preempted.

Plaintiff, a former Nelnet, Inc. ("Nelnet") loan advisor, alleged that certain Nelnet marketing practices were continuing violations of the Federal Family Education Loan Program ("FFELP") established under Part B of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. 1071, that rendered Nelnet liable under the False Claims Act ("FCA"), 31 U.S.C. 3729(a). Plaintiff joined JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup, Inc. as defendants alleging they were knowing participants in a conspiracy to submit false claims. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's third amended complaint. The court affirmed the dismissal and held that there was no abuse of discretion in dismissing plaintiff's claims where plaintiff failed to plead fraud with sufficient particularity and for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).

Homeowners fell behind on their mortgage and the bank initiated foreclosure. The homeowners filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The judge denied their motion for rescission of the mortgage and for damages, based on noncompliance with state laws. The district court and First Circuit affirmed. The homeowners signed right-to-cancel forms required under the Massachusetts Consumer Credit Cost Disclosure Act, modeled after the federal Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1635); technical flaws in the form cannot serve as a basis for invalidating a transaction five years later. Similarly, a slight delay in receipt of a required high-cost loan disclosure did not justify rescission five years later.