Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Debtors executed a promissory note in favor of First State Bank to purchase a condominium. After Debtors defaulted on their loan, First State subsequently filed a complaint against Debtors, the loan’s guarantor, and the condominium property owners’ association (Metro POA), claiming that it was entitled to collect money owed it from the Debtor and guarantor, and that any interest Metro POA had in the real property related to unpaid assessments was inferior to and subject to State Bank’s mortgage. The circuit court granted First State judgment against Debtors and the guarantor, gave First State the right to foreclose on the property, and ruled that Metro POA’s interest would survive the foreclosure action and become the liability of the purchaser. Thereafter, First State purchased the property at a foreclosure sale. On appeal, First State argued that the circuit court erred in refusing to extinguish Metro POA’s lien for unpaid assessments and in awarding Metro POA attorney’s fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in refusing to extinguish Metro POA’s interest and in awarding attorney’s fees to Metro POA. View "First State Bank v. Metro Dist. Condos. Prop. Owners' Ass’n, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs executed a mortgage identifying Domestic Bank as the lender and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as a corporation “acting solely as nominee” for the lender and the lender’s assigns. Later, MERS purported to assign the mortgage to Aurora Loan Services, LLC (Aurora). Aurora “or the successful bidder” allegedly took a foreclosure deed at a subsequent foreclosure sale. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against MERS seeking a declaration that the assignment and foreclosure sale were void and that Plaintiffs owned a fee simple interest in the property. The superior court dismissed the complaint, concluding (1) Plaintiffs did not have standing to seek relief based on the assignment because they were neither an assignor nor an assignee of the assignment; and (2) even if Plaintiffs had standing, their allegations were insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding (1) Plaintiffs had standing to prosecute their claim; and (2) Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion was improperly granted because Plaintiffs’ complaint stated a plausible claim upon which relief could be granted.View "Chhun v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff executed a promissory note secured by a mortgage on his property. After Plaintiff defaulted on the loan, foreclosure proceedings commenced. Plaintiff subsequently filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Then then-holder of the mortgage sought relief from the automatic stay imposed by bankruptcy law. Relief from the stay was given in two bankruptcy cases filed by Plaintiff, the second of which was initiated after a foreclosure sale had been completed. Plaintiff then filed an action seeking a declaration that the foreclosure deed was void and that he owned the property in fee simple absolute. The superior court granted summary judgment against Plaintiff based on the doctrine of res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff was precluded from raising issues regarding the foreclosure again in the superior court after the propriety of the foreclosure was examined by the bankruptcy court and the foreclosure sale was declared valid.View "Reynolds v. First NLC Fin. Servs., LLC" on Justia Law

Ruby Valley National Bank (RVNB) obtained and recorded a deed of trust (DOT) on certain real property subsequent to a previously recorded DOT. Wells Fargo Delaware Trust Co. (Wells Fargo) claimed to be the beneficiary of the first DOT. RVNB filed for judicial foreclosure of its interest in the property. The district court granted summary judgment for RVNB, holding that RVNB’s DOT was entitled to priority over the earlier DOT held by Wells Fargo because Wells Fargo had not proven the elements necessary for judicial foreclosure and was unable to do so because its trial witness and exhibit list had been stricken. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Wells Fargo was not required to file a counterclaim for foreclosure to protect its interest in the property; and (2) because the undisputed facts established that Wells Fargo was the current beneficiary of the first DOT, the undisputed facts established that Wells Fargo was entitled to judgment as a matter of law that its indenture held priority over RVNB’s indenture. View "Ruby Valley Nat’l Bank v. Wells Fargo Del. Trust Co., N.A." on Justia Law

Defendant was assigned the serving rights to Plaintiff's mortgage on a piece of property. Plaintiff sued Defendant, claiming that Defendant attempted to collect more than was due on the loan. The parties settled. Plaintiff then filed this action against Defendant, alleging breach of the settlement agreement, defamation, and violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. An order of default was later entered against Defendant. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for a new trial or to alter or amend the judgment, requesting that the default judgments be set aside because Plaintiff's claims were legally deficient. The trial court denied the motion. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a defaulting party who does not file a motion to vacate the order of default after a default judgment has been entered cannot file a Maryland Rule 2-534 motion to alter or amend a judgment to contest liability, and the defaulting party cannot appeal that judgment in order to contest liability.View "Franklin Credit Mgmt. Corp. v. Nefflen" on Justia Law

The Brattons brought an action against CitiFinancial, Inc. (Citi) alleging that Citi erroneously placed a mortgage on their property and did not release the mortgage after it was notified of the error. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Brattons and awarded damages pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. 382.365. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the Brattons failed to comply with the requirements of section 382.365(4) because they did not give notice by certified mail. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding that section 382.365 simply did not apply to the situation in this case.View "Bratton v. CitiFinancial, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff executed a promissory note to Dollar Mortgage Corporation (DMC) secured by a mortgage on Plaintiff's real property. The mortgage was held by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as the mortgagee and nominee for DMC. Eventually, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company became the holder of Plaintiff's note as custodian for OneWest Bank. Later, MERS assigned Plaintiff's mortgage to the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA). AFter Plaintiff defaulted on his mortgage, FNMA purchased the property at a foreclosure sale. Plaintiff subsequently file this action seeking declaratory relief as to the validity of the foreclosure sale and the ownership of the property, an order quieting title to the property, and damages for negligent misrepresentation. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding, among other things, that Plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the validity of the assignment of the mortgage because he was a stranger to the assignment. The Supreme Court vacated in part and affirmed in part the judgment of the superior court, holding (1) Plaintiff had standing to challenge the validity of the assignment of the mortgage; and (2) the superior court did not err in the remainder of its judgment. View "Mruk v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

In each of these three consolidated cases plaintiff banks brought summary process actions against defendants, former homeowners-mortgagors, after foreclosure. Each defendant raised several defenses and counterclaims in his or her answer to the complaint, including challenges to the bank's right to possession and title as derived through foreclosure sale. Each bank filed a motion to strike the affirmative defenses and to dismiss the counterclaims, arguing that the only defenses and counterclaims available in summary process are those related to landlord-tenant relationships between the parties and those challenging title based on a failure to strictly comply with the power of sale provided in the mortgage. The housing court judge (1) granted the defendants' motions as to landlord-tenant-related defenses and counterclaims, and (2) denied the defendants' motions as to the other defenses and counterclaims, including those challenging title. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the housing court has jurisdiction to hear defenses and counterclaims challenging the title of a plaintiff in a post-foreclosure summary process action and has the authority to award damages in conjunction with such counterclaims.View "Bank of Am., N.A. v. Rosa" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against their sons, their former attorney, a limited liability company (SMP), and others, challenging the validity of their mortgages delivered to SMP. Without first seeking mediation, SMP counterclaimed to foreclose on a mortgage granted by Plaintiffs on their agricultural property. The district court foreclosed the mortgage and denied Plaintiffs' motion to quash or stay the sheriff's sale. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to foreclose on the agricultural property because SMP had not first obtained a mediation release as required by Iowa Code 654A.6(1). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that SMP was not required to obtain the mediation release prior to filing a counterclaim to foreclose its mortgage.View "Schaefer v. Putnam" on Justia Law

Borrowers obtained a home loan from Mann Mortgage and executed of deed of trust (DOT) naming the lender. Borrowers also signed a promissory note, which was endorsed to GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) was identified in the DOT as the beneficiary of the note. Borrowers later defaulted on the note. MERS then assigned its interest in the DOT to Greenpoint, and Greenpoint assigned the servicing rights to Countrywide Home Loans. Following a series of cancelled foreclosure sales, Borrowers filed a complaint against MERS, Greenpoint, and Countrywide (collectively, Lenders), alleging that they lacked the authority to foreclose. The district court granted summary judgment for Lenders. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Lenders because (1) MERS did not qualify as a beneficiary of the DOT under Montana's Small Tract Financing Act; and (2) MERS' agency relationship with the lender was not sufficiently established to warrant summary judgment. View "Pilgeram v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc." on Justia Law