Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

After plaintiffs' house was sold at a non-judicial foreclosure sale, they sued the lender, the holder of the Deed of Trust at the time of the sale, and the successor trustee. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss. The court affirmed, concluding that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Fannie Mae designation; the foreclosure sale's procedures complied with Missouri law; the district court properly ruled that plaintiffs' challenged to activities after the foreclosure sale lacked standing; the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs' breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim; and the district court did not err in deciding that plaintiffs had failed to plead facts that proved a duty to investigate the transaction on the part of the fiduciary trustee. View "Hallquist, et al v. United Home Loan, et al" on Justia Law

Defendant in the underlying action was a "mortgage servicer" that engaged in the business of serving residential mortgages of individuals. Plaintiff in the underlying proceeding contended that mortgage servicing is a "consumer transaction" as defined in the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (CSPA), Ohio Rev. Code 1345.01. Defendant countered that mortgage servicers perform services for financial institutions, not for borrowers, and therefore the transactions are commercial in nature and are not covered by the CSPA. The Supreme Court accepted certification of state-law questions from the federal district court concerning the proper interpretation of Ohio Rev. Code 1345.01(A) and (C). The Supreme Court held that the CSPA does not apply to the servicing of residential mortgage loans because mortgage servicing is not a consumer transaction under the CSPA, and an entity that services a residential mortgage loan is not a "supplier" that engages "in the business of effecting or soliciting consumer transactions" within the meaning of the CSPA. View "Anderson v. BarclayÂ's Capital Real Estate, Inc." on Justia Law

Affordable appealed the district court's grant of Fannie Mae's motion to dismiss, concluding that EFA had not acted as Fannie Mae's agent in originating the loan for a senior living complex that Affordable purchased and that the loan documents unambiguously authorized a prepayment penalty. The court affirmed the dismissal of Affordable's claims for negligent misrepresentation, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment. However, the court reversed the dismissal of Affordable's breach of contract claim where the agreement was ambiguous as to whether "condemnation award" included a sale in lieu of condemnation and remanded for further proceedings. View "Affordable Communities of MO v. Federal Nat'l. Mortgage Assoc." on Justia Law

Debtor borrowed money to finance a real estate purchase. Debtor signed a promissory note and secured the loan with a mortgage. Bank of America (BANA) became the owner of the note. After the mortgage was recorded, an assignment of the mortgage to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) was recorded. MERS subsequently assigned the mortgage to BAC Home Loans Servicing (BAC), which was servicing the loan on behalf of BANA. After Debtor defaulted on her home loan, she and her husband filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. The bankruptcy trustee subsequently initiated an adversary proceeding against BAC, seeking to avoid the mortgage for its failure to comply with the requirements of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 34-2-122 and -123 (the statutes), notice statutes intended to protect third parties from conflicting claims of a principal and agent. The U.S. bankruptcy court filed a certification order to the Wyoming Supreme Court requesting the Court to answer with the mortgage must comply with the requirements of the statutes. The Supreme Court held that the statutes did not apply in this case because there were no conflicting claims by a principal and an agent from which a third party needed protection. View "Barney v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P." on Justia Law

Defendants gave a promissory note to Bank and secured a loan with a trust deed on real property. Defendants defaulted on the note, and Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings. The property was sold after a sheriff's sale. Bank subsequently filed a complaint to recover the deficiency. The district court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that because Bank filed its complaint ninety-nine days after the sheriff's sale, the action was barred by the three-month statute of limitations in Neb. Rev. Stat. 76-1013. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the special three-month statute of limitations on actions for deficiency set forth in the Nebraska Trust Deeds Act applies where a lender elects to judicially foreclose upon the real estate, but the special limitation applies only where the property has been sold by exercising the power of sale set forth in the trust deed; and (2) because the judicial foreclosure of the trust deed in this case did not result in the sale of property under a trust deed, it did not fall under the statutory language in section 76-1013, and the deficiency action was governed by the general statute of limitations for actions on written contracts. Remanded. View "First Nat'l Bank of Omaha v. Davey" on Justia Law

In 2008, Regents Bank issued two loans to Appellant. After Appellant failed to repay either loan, Regents filed a complaint in district court for breach of contract and judicial foreclosure. The district court stayed the proceedings and compelled arbitration as provided in the loan documents. The arbitrator ultimately ruled in Regents' favor. The district court confirmed the arbitration award and later entered an amended judgment and order of sale. Appellant appealed, arguing (1) Regents employed undue means in procuring the award, and (2) the arbitrator manifestly disregarded the law in refusing to void one of the loans. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order confirming the arbitration award, holding (1) Appellant failed to satisfy his burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the award was procured through intentionally misleading conduct; and (2) the arbitrator's refusal to void one of the loans was not a manifest disregard of the law. View "Sylver v. Regents Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Homeowner attended a first Foreclosure Mediation Program (FMP) mediation with Citimortgage, after which Defendant was denied a loan modification. The district court subsequently ordered a second mediation. PennyMac Corp. later obtained beneficial interest in the deed of trust and promissory note and attended the second mediation. The mediator determined that PennyMac failed to bring the promissory note, deed of trust, and other documents to the mediation and that PennyMac's representative lacked authority to negotiate. Homeowner filed a petition for judicial review, requesting sanctions, attorney fees, and a judicially imposed loan modification. The district court imposed sanctions against PennyMac but declined to impose a loan modification or monetary sanctions beyond the amount of attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Homeowner had standing to challenge the district court's order on appeal; and (2) the district court acted within its discretion in denying an FMP certificate and in determining sanctions. View " Jacinto v. PennyMac Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, seeking damages and declaratory relief, brought a diversity action against two national banking associations, alleging violations of Louisiana consumer protection law in connection with a mortgage foreclosure proceeding. The district court dismissed the action in part pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and in part for failure to state a claim of a statutory exemption under Louisiana law. The court concluded that the district court had jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's claims, which were "independent claims" for Rooker-Feldman purposes. However, plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed nonetheless for failure to state a claim where the Louisiana consumer protection law did not provide plaintiff with an avenue of relief because both banks were exempt and where plaintiff had not disputed that her declaratory judgment could be dismissed under Louisiana's preclusion principles. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Truong v. Bank of America, N.A., et al" on Justia Law

Lender made loans to Borrower that were secured by deeds of trust describing real estate owned by Borrower. As additional security for the loans to Borrower, Guarantor promised payment of the indebtedness on the promissory notes. Borrower subsequently defaulted, and Lender sought payment of the indebtedness from Guarantor. Guarantor moved to amend his answer to assert he was not liable to Lender because Lender was barred by section 76-1013 of the Nebraska Trust Deeds Act (Act) from pursuing a deficiency action against Borrower. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Lender. At issue on appeal was whether a guaranty of a promissory note secured by a deed of trust is subject to the Act. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Guarantor's guaranty was not subject to the Act, and under the terms of the guaranty, Guarantor was liable for the total amount of Borrower's debt, less the trustee's sale price. View "Mut. of Omaha Bank v. Murante" on Justia Law

In 2004 Wallace financed a home purchase with a $272,315 mortgage. He took a second mortgage of $164,500 for improvements and to pay down debt. In 2006, Wallace sought a refinance loan of $422,500. Midwest obtained an appraisal from Brock, through the now-defunct Accupraise. A former Accupraise employee explained that Midwest would send a requested appraisal value and Brock would return a tailor-made appraisal, often without seeing the property. Accupraise and Brock valued Wallace’s home at $500,000. Unbeknownst to Wallace, his refinance was an adjustable-rate mortgage that allows negative amortization; he had a teaser rate of two percent that quickly multiplied. For securing a high long-term interest rate, Midwest received a premium in excess of $14,000. The loan created insurmountable financial problems for Wallace. He learned that the true 2006 value of his home was $375,000. Wallace declared bankruptcy, surrendered the home, and sued alleging that he was the victim of a fraudulent scheme violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and Kentucky conspiracy law. Mediation produced a settlement, under which Wallace prevailed on a RESPA claim. The district court granted defendants partial summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit reversed a finding that Wallace did not sufficiently demonstrate that the appraisal proximately caused his financial injuries, but otherwise affirmed. View "Wallace v. Midwest Fin. & Mortg. Servs., Inc." on Justia Law