Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

In 2009, David and Debra Sawyer defaulted on a mortgage held by U.S. Bank N.A. In 2012, the Bank filed a complaint for foreclosure. At the time the complaint was filed, J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A. had taken over as loan servicer. Four court-ordered mediations subsequently took place, during which time the Sawyers attempted to negotiate a modification with Chase. The mediations were unsuccessful, largely due to Chase’s repeated delays and requests to submit documentation that the Sawyers had already submitted. At a show cause hearing, the superior court subsequently dismissed the Bank’s complaint with prejudice, concluding that the Bank was not prepared to proceed at the hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the sanction was not excessive under the circumstances, and (2) there was evidence that the Sawyers were prejudiced by the Bank’s failure to participate in the mediation process in good faith.View "U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Sawyer" on Justia Law

Petitioners obtained a loan from a Lender by taking out a second mortgage on their residence secured by a deed of trust on that property. The Lender sold the loan to another entity, to whom it assigned the loan instruments. That entity, in turn, sold the loan and assigned the loan instruments. After Petitioners had paid off the note and Respondent had released the deed of trust, Petitioners sued the Lender and Respondent, alleging that Lender had violated the Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan Law (SMLL) at the time of the original transaction. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Respondent. The court of special appeals affirmed, holding (1) Petitioners’ sole recourse against an assignee such as Respondent for the Lender’s violations of the SMLL would be by way of recoupment, but (2) because Petitioners filed suit only after they had paid off the loan, that remedy was not available to them. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Respondent was not liable for violations of the SMLL committed by the Lender when the loan was originated, and (2) Respondent was not derivatively liable under statute or the common law for a violation of the SMLL committed by the Lender. View "Thompkins v. Mountaineer Invs., LLC" on Justia Law

The Rhode Island Joint Reinsurance Association brought an interpleader action against multiple defendants for the purpose of determining the proper disposition of insurance proceeds. Bank of America, N.A. (BANA), one of the defendants, moved for summary judgment on the interpleader claim and against defendant Genoveva Santana-Sosa’s cross-claim. The superior court granted summary judgment for BANA, concluding that BANA was entitled to the entire amount of the insurance proceeds and that Santana-Sosa was entitled to none of the disputed funds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that BANA was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.View "R.I. Joint Reinsurance Ass’n v. Santana-Sosa" on Justia Law

Borrowers applied from a home mortgage loan from Lender. During the transaction, a loan officer made an incorrect statement about lien priority. Borrowers later filed breach of fiduciary and negligent misrepresentation claims against Lender, alleging that the junior status of Lender’s lien decreased the marketability and value of their home and exposed them to increased liability. The trial court granted Lender’s motion for summary judgment on all claims. The Court of Appeals concluded that material issues of fact barred summary judgment on Borrowers’ breach of fiduciary duty claim, reasoning that Lender’s assurance of a first priority lien on Borrowers’ new mortgage loan was an act beyond the scope of a normal debtor-creditor relationship. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment for Lender on both claims where no fiduciary duty existed and where Plaintiffs did not forecast evidence that they made a reasonable inquiry into the validity of the loan officer’s statements.View "Dallaire v. Bank of Am., N.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiff signed an adjustable-rate note evidencing a loan from Bank of America and executed a mortgage on property that secured the loan. Bank of America was designated as the Lender and the mortgagee. After Plaintiff defaulted on his loan, a foreclosure auction was held at which Celtic Roman Group placed a successful bid. Before Celtic could close on the property, Plaintiff filed a notice of lis pendens in the land evidence records. Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint challenging Bank of America’s authority to foreclose on the property. The superior court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no genuine issue of fact as to whether Plaintiff defaulted on his loan; (2) the foreclosure sale was lawfully noticed; and (3) Bank of America was the holder of the note at the time of foreclosure.View "McGovern v. Bank of Am., N.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiff executed a promissory note in favor of EquiFirst, secured by a mortgage on real estate. The mortgage designated EquiFirst as the Lender and named Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as the mortgagee and the Lender’s nominee. MERS, as EquiFirst’s nominee, assigned the mortgage to Sutton Funding, which assigned the mortgage to Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company (Bank of New York). Bank of New York subsequently initiated a foreclosure sale, at which it prevailed as the highest bidder. Plaintiff filed suit in the superior court challenging the validity of the two mortgage assignments. The hearing justice dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint under Sup. Ct. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), concluding that the assignments were valid, and additionally dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(7) for failing to join an indispensible party, Bank of New York. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on the basis of Rule 12(b)(7), holding that hearing justice’s dismissal on Rule 12(b)(7) grounds was appropriate where Plaintiff failed to join Bank of New York to the action. View "Rosano v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Corporation obtained a loan from Lenders to help pay for real property that was secured by a deed of trust on the property. Appellant, the principal and sole owner of Corporation, signed a personal guaranty of the loan, which included a waiver of his right to receive notice of any default on the loan. Corporation defaulted on the loan, and Lender purchased the property at a trustee’s sale. Lender then filed a complaint seeking a deficiency judgment from Appellant as guarantor. The district court awarded a deficiency judgment in favor of Lender, concluding (1) Appellant’s waiver of his right to receive a notice of default was invalid pursuant to Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.453; but (2) Lender substantially complied with Nev. Rev. Stat. 107.095’s notice requirement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Legislature intended for section 40.453 to invalidate a guarantor’s purported waiver of the right to be mailed a notice of default; and (2) substantial compliance can satisfy section 107.095’s notice requirements.View "Schleining v. Cap One, Inc." on Justia Law

Petitioner personally guaranteed a commercial real estate loan that Bank purchased. The borrowers defaulted on the loan, and Bank sought recovery of the loan’s balance from Petitioner. While the case against Petitioner was pending, Bank foreclosed and took ownership of the property securing the underlying loan at a trustee’s sale. Bank subsequently moved for summary judgment regarding Petitioner’s liability for his breach of the loan guaranty. Petitioner also moved for summary judgment, arguing that Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.455 precluded Bank from obtaining a judgment for the deficiency on the loan balance after the trustee’s sale. The district court granted summary judgment for Bank. The Supreme Court subsequently issued a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to dismiss the guaranty action against Petitioner, concluding that Bank was barred from recovery under the guaranty because it failed to apply for a deficiency judgment under section 40.455 within six months after the property’s sale. The Supreme Court denied Bank's petition for rehearing because it considered and resolved Bank’s arguments in its order granting mandamus relief and did not misread or misapply the pertinent law.View "Lavi v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Bryant Bank appealed the grant of partial summary judgment in favor of defendants Talmage Kirkland & Company, Inc., d/b/a Kirkland & Company ("TKC"), and Quentin Ball and Jason Stoutamire, appraisers for TKC. This case arose out of an appraisal of real property conducted by TKC for Bryant Bank in the course of Bryant Bank's consideration of a loan application submitted by Wallace Seafood Traders, Inc. ("WST"), in September 2007 for the purchase of the property, which WST was renting and out of which it was operating its business. The Bryant Bank employees responsible for approving WST's loan application suspected that the value of the property might have been overstated in TKC's appraisal. However, Bryant Bank approved WST's loan application and issued the loan to WST. Ultimately, WST defaulted on the loan. Bryant Bank obtained another appraisal of the property from a different appraisal firm; this new appraisal indicated that the property had a value that differed drastically from that which TKC had appraised. Bryant Bank sued the defendants, alleging breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation arising from its reliance on TKC's appraisal report in issuing the loan to WST. In their partial-summary-judgment motion, the defendants argued that Ball and Stoutamire were entitled to a summary judgment as to the breach-of-contract claim because they were acting as agents of a disclosed principal, Bryant Bank. As to the negligent misrepresentation claim, the defendants argued that they were entitled to a summary judgment in their favor because: (1) the opinion of value expressed in TKC's appraisal report could not serve as the basis of a negligent-misrepresentation claim; (2) Bryant Bank had not relied upon TKC's valuation; and (3) the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court concluded the Bank presented substantial evidence that it relied on TKC's appraisal of the property, and that each of the arguments defendants raised in their partial-summary-judgment motion did not warrant the entry of a summary judgment in their favor with respect to the Bank's negligent misrepresentation claim. Therefore, Court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bryant Bank v. Talmage Kirkland & Company, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, the recipients of a home equity loan, reached two loan modification agreements with Defendant, which reduced the interest rate and payments. Plaintiffs subsequently brought this class action against Defendant in the United States District Court, alleging that the loan modifications violated Tex. Const. art. XVI, 50, which sets forth requirements for a new home equity loan. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a cause of action. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals asked the Supreme Court whether the requirements of Article XVI, Section 50 apply to the type of loan restructuring in this case. The Supreme Court answered that, as long as the original note is not satisfied and replaced, and there is no additional extension of credit, the Constitution does not prohibit the restructuring of a home equity loan that already meets its requirements in order to avoid foreclosure. View "Sims v. Carrington Mortgage Servs., LLC" on Justia Law