Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Jatera filed suit against the Bank and SPS in state court, seeking a judgment declaring the lien on the property at issue void because defendants failed to initiate foreclosure proceedings within the four-year statute of limitations. After removal to federal district court, the district court held that the homeowner lacked standing as a plaintiff because she no longer retained an interest in the property. The district court also concluded that detrimental reliance runs to the benefit of the party asserting it, and Jatera had failed to show it detrimentally relied on the acceleration notice.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of Jatera's motion for summary judgment and granted defendants' summary judgment motion. The court held that detrimental reliance was not an exception to the lender's right to unilaterally withdraw an acceleration notice under Texas law. Therefore, in this case, the court need not determine whether there was such reliance, including whether Jatera was assigned the homeowner's detrimental-reliance claim, or whether the homeowner suffered such reliance. View "Jatera Corp. v. US Bank National Assoc." on Justia Law

In 2006 Trinity borrowed about $2 million from a bank, secured by a mortgage. The bank sold the note and mortgage to ColFin, which relied on Midland to collect the payments. In 2013, Midland recorded a “satisfaction,” stating that the loan had been paid and the mortgage released. The loan was actually still outstanding. Trinity continued paying. In 2015, ColFin realized Midland’s mistake and recorded a document canceling the satisfaction. Trinity stopped paying. ColFin filed a state court foreclosure action. Trinity commenced a bankruptcy proceeding, which stayed the foreclosure, then filed an adversary action against ColFin, contending that the release extinguished the debt and security interest. The bankruptcy court, district court, and Seventh Circuit rejected that argument and an argument that the matter was moot because the property had been sold under the bankruptcy court’s auspices. There is a live controversy about who should get the sale proceeds; 11 U.S.C. 363(m), which protects the validity of the sale, does not address the disposition of the proceeds. Under Illinois law, Trinity did not obtain rights from the 2013 filing, which was unilateral and without consideration; no one (including Trinity) detrimentally relied on the release, so ColFin could rescind it. ColFin caught the problem before Trinity filed its bankruptcy petition, so a hypothetical lien perfected on the date of the bankruptcy would have been junior to ColFin’s interest. View "Trinity 83 Development LLC v. Colfin Midwest Funding LLC" on Justia Law

The City brought an action against homeowners and their mortgage lender, SunTrust, and sought the appointment of a receiver to undertake the remediation of a public nuisance created by the homeowners on their residential property.Determining that the appeal was not moot, the Court of Appeal held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in authorizing a super-priority lien to secure the loan taken by the receiver to fund remediation of the homeowners' property. In this case, because neither the homeowners nor SunTrust was willing to fund the costly remediation and the property did not produce any income, the receiver had to borrow money in order to proceed with the remediation. Because no lender would loan money to the receiver unless the loan was secured with a super-priority lien on the property, the only way to effect the remediation was to authorize the receiver's request to issue such a receiver's certificate. The court held that SunTrust's contention that it should remain the senior lienholder—and benefit from the increased property value provided by the remediation while bearing none of the cost—was simply untenable. View "City of Sierra Madre v. SunTrust Mortgage" on Justia Law

SE Property Holdings, LLC ("SEPH") appealed the grant of summary judgment entered in favor of Bank of Franklin ("BOF") on BOF's claim demanding specific performance of a contractual provision. In March 2005, Vision Bank, a Florida company, loaned Bama Bayou, LLC, formally known as Riverwalk, LLC ("the borrower"), $6,000,000. Multiple individuals allegedly personally guaranteed repayment of the loan ("the guarantors"). In June 2008, pursuant to a "participation agreement," Vision Bank conveyed to BOF a 25 percent interest in the loan. Vision Bank conveyed additional participation interests in the loan to other banks. The borrower and the guarantors allegedly defaulted on their obligations with respect to the loan, and in January 2009 Vision Bank filed suit against them. The borrower and the guarantors asserted counterclaims against Vision Bank and brought BOF into the action as an additional counterclaim defendant. In April 2009, Vision Bank foreclosed on a mortgage securing the loan. Vision Bank was the highest bidder at the foreclosure sale and thereafter executed foreclosure deeds in favor of BOF and the other participating banks. In 2012, Vision Bank sold its operating assets to Centennial Bank and relinquished its Florida bank charter. Vision Bank and SEPH entered into an "agreement and plan of merger," whereby Vision Bank merged "with and into" SEPH. In October 2016, the trial court entered an order setting aside the foreclosure sale and declaring the foreclosure deeds void. Among other things, BOF asserted in its cross-claim that SEPH had an obligation to repurchase BOF's participation interest in the loan. In support, BOF pointed to the participation agreement between BOF and SEPH's predecessor, Vision Bank. The court granted BOF's motion for summary judgment on its claim for specific performance based on the participation agreement. SEPH argued on appeal that the trial court erred in determining that a "proceeding" involving Vision Bank's termination of existence was "commenced," so as to invoke the contractual provision; it asserted Vision Bank's voluntary merger with SEPH was not a "proceeding." The participation agreement in this case stated that BOF's participation interest was conveyed without recourse, but the contract provision provided BOF at least some security in the form of a right to force the repurchase of its participation interest in the event of the financial deterioration of the originating bank, i.e., Vision Bank. The Alabama Supreme Court concluded the voluntary merger like the one entered into by Vision Bank and SEPH is not a "proceeding" as that term is used in the participation agreement, and reversed the trial court's judgment ordering SEPH to purchase BOF's participation interest. View "SE Property Holdings, LLC, f/k/a Vision Bank v. Bank of Franklin" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed the judgment of the district court granting Bank’s motion to dismiss this case alleging that Bank failed to comply with the notice requirements in Plaintiffs’ mortgage before foreclosing on their property, holding that Bank’s failure to strictly comply with paragraph 22 of the mortgage invalidated the foreclosure.Paragraph 22 required that prior to accelerating payment by Plaintiffs, the mortgagee had to provide Plaintiffs with notice specifying certain elements. After Bank sent default and acceleration notices to Plaintiffs Plaintiff failed to cure the default, and Bank conducted a foreclosure sale. Plaintiffs then filed a complaint alleging that Bank failed to comply with the paragraph 22 notice requirements prior to foreclosing on their property. The district court granted Bank’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, concluding that Bank’s default and acceleration notice strictly complied with paragraph 22. The First Circuit disagreed, holding (1) the mortgage terms for which Massachusetts courts demand strict compliance include the provisions in paragraph 22 requiring and prescribing the preforeclosure default notice; and (2) because the default letter omitted certain information that rendered the notice potentially deceptive the Bank violated the strict compliance requirement, thus invalidating the foreclosure. View "Thompson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court quashed the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal on the question of whether a voluntary dismissal provides a basis for being considered the prevailing party for the purpose of appellate attorney fees, holding that the court of appeal improperly denied appellate attorney’s fees based on the bank’s voluntary dismissal of the appeal.Appellant, a homeowner, sought appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to Fla. Stat. 57.105(7) after a bank filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in the court of appeal. The court of appeal concluded that Appellant was not entitled to appellate attorney’s fees because she prevailed on her standing argument presented in the trial court. The Supreme Court quashed the decision below, holding (1) caselaw makes clear that a voluntary dismissal of an appeal renders the opposing party the prevailing party for the purpose of appellate attorney fees; and (2) Appellant was entitled to appellate attorney fees because the bank maintained its right to enforce the reverse mortgage contract in its appeal until the dismissal. View "Glass v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC" on Justia Law

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim that the bank was vicariously liable for the failure of the bank's loan servicer to comply with the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The court held that plaintiff did not plead an agency relationship between the bank and the loan servicer, an essential element of a vicarious liability claim. Furthermore, even if the bank had an agency relationship with the loan servicer, the bank cannot be held vicariously liable, as a matter of law, for the servicer's alleged RESPA violations. View "Christiana Trust v. Riddle" on Justia Law

Darin Bergeman appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action against Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS) and Mohamed Elabed. This case arose from disposition of a home and acreage owned by Bergeman’s mother, Karen Hansen. In 1998, Ms. Hansen obtained a loan on the property that was secured by a deed of trust. The loan and deed of trust were eventually assigned to U.S. Bank National Association with SPS as the servicer for the loan. After Ms. Hansen died in 2006, Bergeman took possession of the property. Mortgage statements continued to be sent to the estate of Ms. Hansen and Bergeman made payments that were accepted and credited to the loan. However, Bergeman did not personally assume liability on the note. In March 2012, the executor of Ms. Hansen’s estate issued Bergeman an executor’s deed for the property. Around July 2015, apparently as a result of Bergeman’s incarceration, he stopped making payments on the loan. In September 2016, a Notice of Default was recorded. Although he alleges that he either made payments or made arrangements for others to make payments on the loan, Bergeman acknowledged the loan was in default. The Notice of Default was followed in October 2016 by a Trustee’s Notice of Sale that announced the foreclosure sale of the property. Notices of this sale were mailed to Ms. Hansen’s estate, the executor, Bergeman, and the current occupants of the property. During this same time, SPS continued to send monthly mortgage statements to the estate. At the foreclosure sale on February 23, 2017, Mohamed Elabed purchased the property. Bergeman sued SPS and Elabed alleging misrepresentation, negligent supervision, trespass, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. SPS and Elabed moved to dismiss, which was granted. Finding that Bergeman failed to support his claims as a "general attack upon the decision of the district court," the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed dismissal. View "Bergeman v. Select Portfolio Svc" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissal this appeal from an order of the district court denying Appellant’s request for a stay of an order of sale in a judicial foreclosure action, holding that the order denying the request for a stay was not appealable.The district court determined that Appellant and his former spouse owed Mutual of Omaha Bank $533,459, ordered an execution sale, and foreclosed Appellant and his former spouse from asserting any interest in the property. Mutual subsequently applied to and received from the district court a supplemental decree ordering that sums paid by Mutual that were not included in the initial decree be added to the amount due Mutual. After Appellant unsuccessfully requested a stay of the order of sale Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding (1) because a supplemental decree like the one at issue in this case does not give rise to a right to seek a statutory stay the district court’s order denying Appellant’s request for a stay did not affect an essential legal right; and (2) therefore, the order was not final, and this Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the appeal. View "Mutual of Omaha Bank v. Watson" on Justia Law

If a creditor fails to make required disclosures under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), borrowers are allowed three years from the loan's consummation date to rescind certain loans. However, TILA does not include a statute of limitations outlining when an action to enforce such a rescission must be brought.The Ninth Circuit applied the analogous state law statute of limitations -- Washington's six year contract statute of limitations -- to TILA rescission enforcement claims. The panel held that plaintiff's TILA claim was timely under Washington's statute of limitations. In this case, the cause of action arose in May 2013 when the Bank failed to take any action to wind up the loan within 20 days of receiving plaintiff's notice of rescission. The panel also held that the district court improperly denied plaintiff leave to amend the complaint. View "Hoang v. Bank of America NA" on Justia Law