Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Appellants filed a promissory note that was secured by a deed of trust on their property. At the time that Appellants defaulted, Respondent was the holder of the note and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) was the beneficiary of the deed of trust securing the note. After Appellants filed for bankruptcy, MERS assigned its interest in the deed of trust to Respondent. Before the assignment was recorded, Respondent filed a proof of claim in Appellants’ bankruptcy claiming that it was a secured creditor. Respondent then filed a motion for relief from the automatic bankruptcy stay so that it could foreclose on Appellants’ property. Appellants argued that Respondent was not a secured creditor because it did not have a unified note and deed of trust when the bankruptcy petition was filed. The United States Bankruptcy Court certified two questions of law to the Supreme Court concerning the legal effect on a foreclosure when the promissory note and deed of trust are split at the time of foreclosure. The Supreme Court concluded (1) when the promissory note is held by a principal and the beneficiary under the deed of trust is the principal’s agent at the time of foreclosure, reunification of the note and the deed of trust is not required to foreclose; and (2) as a matter of law, the recording of an assignment of a deed of trust is a ministerial act. View "In re Montierth" on Justia Law

Appellants guaranteed two commercial loans that loans were eventually assigned to Bank. When the properties securing the commercial loans were foreclosed, Bank brought a breach of guaranty action against Appellants. At issue at trial was the application of Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.459(1)(c), which reduces the amount of some deficiency judgments. The district court concluded that section 40.459(1)(c) would be retroactive if applied to Appellants’ loans because the statute took effect after the loans were assigned and that Appellants were therefore liable for the full deficiency. The Supreme Court subsequently published Sandpointe Apartments v. Eighth Judicial District Court, which held that section 40.459(1)(c) is prospective if there has been no foreclosure sale on the underlying loan as of the date the statute was enacted. The foreclosure sale in this case occurred more than two months after section 40.459(1)(c) took effect. The Fords filed a motion pursuant to Nev. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) asking the district court to set aside the judgment against them. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Rule 60(b)(5) is not an appropriate avenue for seeking relief based on new or changed precedent, even if enforcement might be inequitable. View "Ford v. Branch Banking & Trust Co." on Justia Law

Townsend signed a note and a mortgage to purchase a condominium. After Townsend defaulted, HSBC sought foreclosure under Illinois law. Representing himself, Townsend answered the complaint. HSBC moved for summary judgment, submitting evidence of default; that Townsend owed $141,425.65; and that HSBC owned the note and mortgage. Townsend failed to respond. The court entered a judgment of foreclosure, an order finding that Townsend owed $143,569.65, and an order providing for judicial sale if Townsend did not pay before the redemption period expired. The court wrote that the judgment was “a final and appealable order” that was “fully dispositive” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), but retained jurisdiction to enforce or vacate (in the event of reinstatement) the judgment. The court acknowledged that it might have to hold a hearing to confirm the judicial sale under Illinois law and could decide not to confirm, if appropriate parties did not receive proper notice, if sale terms were unconscionable, if the sale was conducted fraudulently, “or … justice was otherwise not done.” The Seventh Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The judgment of foreclosure and judicial sale posed no imminent threat of irreparable harm to Townsend. His interests are protected under Illinois law. Because entry of the Rule 54(b) judgment compelled Townsend to appeal when he did, the court ordered that costs on appeal be assessed against HSBC. View "HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Townsend" on Justia Law

Kentucky’s statutes require that assignment of a mortgage must be recorded within 30 days. Plaintiffs, landowners with mortgages, argued that, for purposes of that requirement, a transfer of a promissory note is an assignment of a mortgage securing the note, and must be recorded. The issue arose because of the use of the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS), a private company that operates a national electronic registry to track servicing rights and ownership of mortgage loans. When a home is purchased, the lender obtains promissory note and a mortgage naming MERS as the mortgagee (as nominee for the lender and its successors). The borrower assigns his interest in the property to MERS, and the mortgage is recorded in local records with MERS as the named mortgagee. When the note is sold in the secondary mortgage market, the MERS database tracks that transfer. MERS remains the mortgagee of record, avoiding recording and other transfer fees and continues to act as an agent for the new owner of the note. The district court agreed with plaintiffs. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The text, structure, and purposes of Kentucky’s recording statutes (KRS 382.365(5)) indicate that transfer of a promissory note is not, itself, an assignment of a mortgage securing the note. View "Higgins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP" on Justia Law

Petitioner Jennifer Pike appealed a Superior Court order granting summary judgment to respondent Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (as Trustee), in her action to enjoin the foreclosure sale of real property located in New London. On appeal, petitioner argued that the trial court erred when it determined that she lacked standing to challenge the assignment of the mortgage to the Trust, and when it declined to enjoin the foreclosure, notwithstanding her assertion that she had a homestead right. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Pike v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a homeowner, appealed the dismissal of his action against Freddie Mac, for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty where Freddie Mac purchased plaintiff's mortgage from Taylor Bean, the loan originator, on a secondary market. Taylor Bean failed to pay the insurance premium from an escrow account and caused plaintiff's insurance to be cancelled. The court concluded that plaintiff failed to allege facts that, if true, would establish that Freddie Mac had a contractual duty to service the loan where the Deed of Trust expressly disavows any assumption of servicing obligations by a subsequent purchaser of the loan, and Freddie Mac never expressly assumed any such obligations. The court concluded that Washington law did not prohibit this arrangement and that this arrangement is typical for such home loans. Finally, the court concluded that plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty argument failed because Section 20 of the Deed of Trust where the duty to hold the money for the insurance premiums in escrow remained with the loan servicer, Taylor Bean. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Johnson v. FHLMC" on Justia Law

Appellants Branch Banking & Trust Company ("BB&T"), Rusty Winfree, and Todd Fullington appealed a circuit court judgment entered in favor of Rex Nichols ("Sonny") and Claudene Nichols on the Nicholses' claims against appellants and on BB&T's counterclaim against the Nicholses. In late 2005, Sonny began talking to Winfree about obtaining financing from Colonial Bank ("Colonial"), Winfree's employer, for the purchase of approximately 500 acres of real property in Stapleton, Alabama. The Nicholses intended to develop the Stapleton property into a subdivision. In February 2006, the Nicholses executed a loan agreement with Colonial, in which Colonial agreed to lend the Nicholses close to $2.8 million to purchase the property. Sonny testified that in late 2007, as the maturity date on the note approached, he began contacting Colonial regarding renewing the loan; he further testified that, around the same time, Winfree became slow to communicate with him. Sonny also testified that before the February 27, 2008, maturity date on the promissory note, he spoke to Fullington about renewing the loan, with Colonial carrying the interest going forward. A few weeks later, the Nicholses were notified that Colonial would not carry the interest on the loan or provide additional funds for development of the property. Colonial ultimately renewed the terms of the note until Colonial failed in August 2009. The FDIC assumed control of its assets and liabilities. The FDIC sold many of Colonial's assets and liabilities to BB&T, including the Nicholses' loan. Fullington was hired by BB&T; Winfree was not. In early November 2009, BB&T informed the Nicholses that it would not lend them additional funds to develop the property. The Nicholses stopped making interest payments on the loan in November 2009. On March 10, 2010, the Nicholses sued the appellants and fictitiously named defendants, alleging fraud, reformation, negligence, wantonness, and breach of fiduciary duty against all appellants. Against BB&T, the Nicholses also alleged a claim of unjust enrichment and sought damages on a theory of promissory estoppel. The appellants separately moved the circuit court to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P. BB&T also filed a counterclaim, alleging that the Nicholses had defaulted on their obligations under a June 2009 promissory note and seeking damages related to that default. The circuit court denied the motions to dismiss the complaint but granted a motion to strike the request for a jury trial. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court erred in entering a judgment in favor of the Nicholses on their claims against the appellants and on BB&T's counterclaim against them. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded with instructions to the circuit court to enter a judgment in favor of the appellants on the Nicholses' claims against them and in favor of BB&T on its counterclaim against the Nicholses and to determine the damages to be awarded on the counterclaim. View "Branch Banking & Trust Company v. Nichols" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the correct interpretation of two different state statutes concerning defects in real estate titles. A Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee filed this action to avoid a mortgage held by a bank that contained a material defect: the certificate of acknowledgement did not include the names of the mortgagors. After the mortgage was recorded, the notary on the mortgage executed an affidavit, later recorded, attesting that the debtors had personally and voluntarily signed the mortgage. The debtors later went into bankruptcy. At issue in this case was whether, under Massachusetts law, the affidavit could cure the defective acknowledgement or otherwise provide constructive notice to a bona fide purchaser. If not, the bankruptcy trustee could avoid the mortgage. Because the state law questions were dispositive and unresolved by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), the First Circuit certified the questions for resolution by the Massachusetts SJC. View "Bank of America, N.A. v. Casey" on Justia Law

The Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”) purchased Russell Hafer’s home at a non-judicial foreclosure sale. FNMA filed an eviction suit when Russell and his wife, Sandra, refused to vacate. The Hafers claimed that the foreclosure sale was invalid because their loan servicer, American Home Mortgage Services, Inc.(now known as Homeward Residential, Inc.), agreed to modify the terms of Russell’s loan just prior to instituting foreclosure proceedings. They claimed that Russell was therefore not in default at the time of the sale. The Hafers filed a third-party complaint against Homeward, stating eleven causes of action and asking the district court to quiet title in Russell. FNMA and Homeward filed a joint motion for summary judgment, arguing that there was no agreement to modify the loan terms because Russell did not sign and return a permanent loan modification agreement to Homeward by the specified deadline. The district court granted the motion in favor of FNMA and partially granted the motion in favor of Homeward, holding that there was no agreement between Homeward and Russell modifying Russell’s loan because no Homeward representative signed an agreement. The Hafers appealed, arguing: (1) the district court erred in considering the question whether an agreement had to be signed by a Homeward representative when that issue was not raised in the joint motion for summary judgment; and (2) that the district court erred substantively in concluding that there was no agreement to modify Russell’s loan absent a signature from a Homeward representative. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing the Hafers' first, third, and fourth causes of action against Homeward, as well as granting FNMA's claim for possession. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Federal National Mortgage Association v. Hafer" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Ocwen after their lender's purchase of their residence at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale, alleging that Ocwen violated Civil Code section 2923.6, the prohibition on "dual tracking" contained in the Homeowners Bill of Rights, when it conducted a foreclosure sale of plaintiffs' property while their loan modification application was pending. The trial court sustained Ocwen’s demurrer. However, the court concluded that by alleging the submission of the loan modification application three days after receipt of the Offer Letter, and the transmittal of the additional documents requested by Ocwen on the date of request, plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that a complete loan modification application was pending at the time Ocwen foreclosed on their home in violation of section 2923.6. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the trial court. View "Valbuena v. Ocwen Loan Servicing" on Justia Law