Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

At issue in this appeal was whether a respondent in a try title action may test the substantive merits of a petition’s claims in the first step of such an action, where the first step requires that the petition satisfy the jurisdictional elements of the statute. Petitioner in this case filed a petition to try title in the Land Court asserting that a purported assignment of a mortgage was invalid, thereby challenging a foreclosure by a Bank as trustee. Respondents filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim because, at the time of filing, the Bank as the assignee of the mortgage had already foreclosed on Petitioner’s mortgage. The Land Court allowed the motion, concluding that Petitioner’s petition failed to sufficiently allege effective record title, which in turn resulted in a lack of standing, because none of the allegations established any ground on which the assignment could be found invalid. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a petitioner claiming defect in the legal title of a purported mortgagee may only meet the jurisdictional element of an “adverse claim” after that mortgagee has foreclosed; and (2) the judge correctly considered the merits of Petitioner’s claims as a necessary step in determining the absence of his record title, and therefore, dismissal with prejudice was proper. View "Abate v. Fremont Inv. & Loan" on Justia Law

Borrower took out a loan from the predecessor-in-interest of Bank. The loan was secured by a deed of trust on certain property and personally guaranteed by Guarantor. After Borrower defaulted and Guarantor failed to fulfill his obligations, Bank instituted an action seeking a receiver to collect rents from and to sell the secured property. The district court approved the request. The receiver (Receiver) subsequently entered into a purchase and sale agreement with a third-party purchaser (Purchaser). The district court approved the sale, and Purchaser paid the agreed-upon price and obtained the deed to the property. Bank then filed a complaint seeking to recover the amount of Guarantor’s indebtedness that the net proceeds that the sale did not satisfy. Borrower and Guarantor (together, Respondents) moved for summary judgment, arguing that the relief sought was in essence an application for a deficiency judgment under Nev. Rev. Stat. 40.455(1), which Bank was precluded from seeking because Bank failed to comply with section 40.455(1)’s time frame. The district court granted the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) section 40.455(1) applied in this case; and (2) Bank’s application for a deficiency judgment was timely. Remanded. View "U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Palmilla Dev. Co." on Justia Law

In this bankruptcy case, Bank of America obtained a junior foreclosure judgment and received the Debtor’s equity of redemption for a senior mortgage. Bank of America did not sell this interest within the specified time period, nor did it appear in the senior foreclosure to assert its interest in redeeming the senior mortgage within the redemption period. Peoples United Bank, the holder of the senior mortgage, then filed a foreclosure complaint. Bank of America and the Debtor failed to appear in the action and were defaulted. Thereafter, Peoples United was granted a foreclosure judgment. Bank of America was not named as a distributee in the resulting judgment. Bank of America subsequently purchased Peoples United’s interest in the Debtor’s senior mortgage debt, and Peoples United postponed the foreclosure sale. Bank of America successfully moved to substitute itself in place of Peoples United as the plaintiff in the senior foreclosure. The Trustee then moved to sell the premises free of liens, interests, and encumbrances. Bank of America objected. The bankruptcy court entered judgment in favor of Bank of America. The federal district court disagreed with the bankruptcy court and certified an unsettled state law question to the Maine Supreme Court. The Court answered that Bank of America, who failed to appear in the senior foreclosure and was not named as a distributee in the resulting judgment, did not have any rights to the excess proceeds from that foreclosure sale. View "Bankruptcy Estate of Everest v. Bank of Am., N.A." on Justia Law

In 2007, Amy Chartier executed a promissory note, and as security, Amy and her husband, Ronald, executed a mortgage encumbering their residential property. The note and mortgage were eventually assigned to CitiMortgage, Inc. In 2010, CitiMortgage filed a complaint alleging that Amy was in default and seeking foreclosure of the mortgage. In their answer, the Chartiers alleged that CitiMortgage failed to provide a notice of default and right to cure as required by the mortgage. After a non-jury trial, the district court entered a judgment of foreclosure for CitiMortgage, concluding that the notice of default complied with the terms of the mortgage. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment, holding that the district court erred in entering judgment against the Chartiers because the notice of default provided by CitiMortgage did not comply with the conditions in the mortgage instrument. View "CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Chartier" on Justia Law

Defendant executed a promissory note in favor of the entity that was soon to merge with First Tennessee Bank National Association. The note was secured by a deed of trust for property in California. First Tennessee later filed a complaint against Defendant, alleging that he was in default on the note and seeking damages in the amount of $274,467. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendant, concluding that First Tennessee’s claim was barred by a California statute of limitations. First Tennessee appealed, arguing that the district court erred in finding that the limitations period was not tolled by either a California statute or provision of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the California tolling statute could not be applied against Defendant, a nonresident of California, without violating the Commerce Clause; and (2) although Defendant was a member of the National Guard, he was neither on “active duty” during his membership nor had he ever been called to active service, and therefore, the SCRA provided no basis to toll the limitations period. View "First Tenn. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Newham" on Justia Law

When Amos Graves was anticipating losing his home to foreclosure, Michael Wayman persuaded him to enter into a transaction that would purportedly save his home. Graves executed a quitclaim deed in favor of a corporate entity under Wayman’s control, but, the next day, sent a cancellation notice to Wayman, as was his statutory right. Wayman refused to cancel the transaction. When Wayman ceased making mortgage payments, First Minnesota Bank, the eventual mortgagee of the property, foreclosed on and purchased the home. Graves sued Wayman, Wayman’s companies, and First Minnesota, alleging that First Minnesota’s mortgage was invalid because Graves did not lawfully sell his home to Wayman. The district court awarded the property to First Minnesota, concluding that the bank was a bona fide purchaser. The court of appeals reversed and awarded the property to Graves, concluding that First Minnesota did not qualify as a bona fide purchaser. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) First Minnesota was not entitled to rights in the property as a bona fide purchaser; but (2) the court of appeals erred in concluding that Graves should be awarded title to the property free of any interest of First Minnesota. Remanded. View "Graves v. Wayman" on Justia Law

After Shirley Carson defaulted on loan payments, Bank sought a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the mortgaged premises. The circuit court entered judgment in favor of Bank of New York Mellon (“the Bank”). More than sixteen months after the judgment of foreclosure was entered, the Bank had not sold the property. Carson filed a motion to amend the judgment to include a finding that the property was abandoned and an order that the Bank bring the property to sale within five weeks from the date of entry of the amended judgment. The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that it lacked the authority to order the Bank to sell the property at a specific time under Wis. Stat. 846.102. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the court may use its contempt authority to order a sale under these circumstances. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) when the circuit court determines that a property is abandoned, section 846.102 authorizes the court to order a mortgagee to bring the property to sale after the redemption period; and (2) because the circuit court in this case did not reach the issue of whether the property had been abandoned, the case must be remanded. View "Bank of New York v. Carson" on Justia Law

Defendants Barrett and Linda Gregoire, sought to amend or set aside judgments of foreclosure in favor of plaintiff bank based on claims of fraud and misrepresentation. The dispute underlying this case concerned four multi-family rental properties: three in Washington County and one in Caledonia County that were part of defendants' rental-property business. The bank's loans to defendants were secured by the properties and were cross-collateralized with each other. In March and April 2010, the bank filed foreclosure complaints with respect to the properties. The parties executed a forbearance agreement under which defendants retained control of the properties as landlords, but the tenants were to pay rent directly to the bank. The parties stipulated to the appointment of a receiver to collect rent for the bank. The receiver filed a report with the court stating that defendant Barrett Gregoire was renting to new tenants and collecting rents and security deposits without turning over the funds to the receiver. Shortly thereafter, the bank filed an emergency motion to enforce the receivership order based on allegations that defendant Barrett Gregoire was substantially interfering with the receivership. The court issued a supplemental order, expanding the receiver's authority and placing the receiver in full control of the properties. The bank notified the court that the forbearance was no longer in place, and that it would proceed with foreclosure. The trial court denied the Gregoires' motions to set aside the trial court's grant of the bank's motions. On appeal, defendants argued that there was no final judgment so the order could have been amended without resort to post-judgment proceedings, and even if it was a final order, the court erred in denying their request for relief and in entering judgment of default. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "TBF Financial, LLC v. Gregoire" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs purchased a home subject to a deed of trust. After they defaulted on their loan, nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings were initiated, and the beneficiary of the deed of trust, OneWest, purchased the property at the foreclosure sale. Plaintiffs sued, alleging that the sale was void due to irregularities in the foreclosure proceedings: the predicate notice of default was executed and recorded by an entity claiming to be the trustee of OneWest several weeks before OneWest signed and recorded documents formally designating that entity as such. The trial court dismissed. The court of appeal affirmed. There was no statutory defect in the manner or timing of the trustee substitution, but even if so, the entity was otherwise authorized to act for OneWest in filing the notice of default because it was alleged that the entity was at all times acting as the agent of OneWest. Alternatively, any alleged defect or omission was not substantial within the meaning of the law of foreclosure, making the subsequent sale at most voidable, and not void. Because the sale was, at worst, only voidable, the borrowers in default were required to allege tender and prejudice, which they did not do. View "Ram v. OneWest Bank" on Justia Law

The Borrower defaulted on a nonrecourse Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities (CMBS) loan secured by property located in Detroit. CMBS loans are packaged as a trust to attract investors; in return for nonrecourse liability, CMBA borrowers promise to refrain from certain financial behavior likely to increase the risk of default and bankruptcy; the loan at issue included a solvency clause. Michigan’s 2012 Nonrecourse Mortgage Loan Act applies retroactively to render solvency covenants in nonrecourse loans unenforceable, declaring them “an unfair and deceptive business practice . . . against public policy [that] should not be enforced.” The lender foreclosed. Purchaser bought the property at auction with a winning bid of $756,000, and, standing in the lender’s shoes and citing the solvency clause, sued Borrower and its guarantor to collect a $6 million deficiency. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Borrower. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that that the NMLA: rendered the solvency covenant in Borrower’s CMBS loan unenforceable; violated neither the Contract nor Due Process Clauses of the United States and Michigan Constitutions; and comported with Michigan’s constitutional provision mandating the separation of governmental powers. View "Borman, LLC v. 18718 Borman, LLC" on Justia Law