Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

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.

This action for breach of contract and related tort claims had its origin in a February 9, 2006 Credit and Security Agreement, wherein defendant agreed inter alia to provide plaintiff with a revolving line of credit. Plaintiff subsequently appealed from a judgment of dismissal entered by the district court, contending that the district court erred in relying on releases executed in favor of defendant, most recently in a forbearance agreement to dismiss its claims because its complaint pleaded that these releases were induced by economic duress. The court held that plaintiff failed to plead plausibly that defendant made a "wrongful threat," an essential element of economic duress. Rather, the conduct alleged to have caused duress evidences only the exercise of defendant's legal rights under the parties' original contract and subsequent agreements. Therefore, to the extent that those rights included defendant's exercise of "reasonable discretion" in various areas, plaintiff's allegations failed as a matter of law to plead actions exceeding the scope of such discretion. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgement of dismissal.

Appellee Compass Bank and Amy Hovis petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct a circuit court to dismiss an action filed in that court filed by Appellant Jerome Sirote based on Alabama's abatement statute. Appellant filed suit against the Bank and several of its employees alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, fraud, deceit, and violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Appellant alleged that the Bank improperly processed transactions in his deposit account and misstated material facts related to that account. The Bank moved to dismiss the complaint. The district court entered an order dismissing Appellant's federal claims with prejudice. The court remanded the case for further proceedings on the state law claims. The Bank moved to dismiss the remaining charges under the Abatement Statute, arguing that Appellant was barred from prosecuting two actions simultaneously in different courts if the claims alleged in each action arose from the same underlying operative facts. Upon review, the Supreme Court granted the Bank's petition and issued the writ to direct the lower court to dismiss Appellant's state claims.

Plaintiffs Debbie and Max Walters appealed from a district court judgment that dismissed their petition for the issuance of a turnover order. In 1990, the Walters' thirteen-year-old son was killed on a hunting trip with his father when a Chinese-manufactured rifle the boy carried allegedly misfired. The Walters sued China and several entities allegedly controlled by China in the U.S. District Court on theories of products liability, negligence, and breach of warranty in connection with the manufacture of the rifle. The Walters eventually won a $10 million default judgment, and sought to enforce it by collecting China's assets in the possession of the respondent banks, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Ltd., Bank of China, Ltd. and China Construction Bank Corporation. Citing the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), the district court dismissed the petition with prejudice. Without filing a new petition, the Walters argued on appeal that the Banks lacked standing to assert foreign sovereign immunity on behalf of China, and that China waived any immunity by its conduct underlying the default judgment and by its failure to appear. Upon review of the submitted briefs and the applicable legal authority, the Second Circuit found Plaintiffs' arguments were without merit, and affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss their case.

Joseph (Joe) Mandolfo sued his brother Mario and American National Bank (ANB). At one time, Joe owned several businesses, some of which had accounts with ANB. After his brother Mario lost his job as a teacher, Joe hired Mario to work for him. Joe alleged that Mario had, with the help of ANB, wrongfully deposited checks intended for Joeâs business, into his own account. From 1995 until 2000, Joe contended that Mario embezzled about $1.2 million. The district court granted summary judgment to Joe against Mario. The court however, also granted summary judgment to ANB, concluding that a statute of limitations barred Joeâs claims against the bank. Joe appealed the grant of summary judgment to the bank. The Supreme Court concluded that Joeâs claims were governed by the Uniform Commercial Code, and as a result, were subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Joe did not discover Marioâs misappropriations until 2003. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower courtâs decision to dismiss Joeâs claims against the bank as untimely.