Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed suit against Wells Fargo after plaintiffs' application for a mortgage modification under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) was denied. The district court concluded that plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and therefore granted Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss. The court concluded that plaintiffs have not plausibly stated a breach of contract claim; plaintiffs' negligence claim failed because there was no express or implied contract and therefore, no tort duty could arise as a matter of law; plaintiffs' Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law 13-301(1), claim failed because Wells Fargo did not make misrepresentations when it stated that it needed more information to process plaintiffs' HAMP application; and the district court court properly dismissed the negligent misrepresentation and common law fraud claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Spaulding v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appeal from the district court's order denying their motion for remand to state courts. This is an interlocutory appeal of a question certified by the district court, calling for interpretation of the jurisdictional provisions of the Edge Act, 12 U.S.C. 632. Whether the district court's denial of remand was proper turns on whether the dispute falls within section 632. The court concluded that the dispute did not fall within section 632's grant of jurisdiction so that removal from state to federal court was not authorized by the statute. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's order denying remand. View "AIG v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

Developers purchased forty acres with the intent to develop it. Appellants secured a mortgage on the property with a bank. Later Developers formed a municipal property owners' district (the District). Law Firm was retained by the District as legal counsel for the proposed issuance of improvement bonds to finance public improvements in the development. At issue in this case were certain bonds issued by the District that were sold to several banks (Appellants). Developer defaulted on payment of the capital improvement use fees on the bonds and subsequently defaulted on the original mortgage, and the property was sold. Appellants sued Law Firm, alleging that Law Firm had a duty to inform Appellants of the mortgage on the real property and that it failed to inform them. The circuit court granted summary judgment for Law Firm. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding that the circuit court (1) correctly found Law Firm was not liable under the Arkansas Security Act; (2) erred in granting judgment on the issue of attorney malpractice; and (3) correctly found Law Firm had no duty to Appellants under contract, negligence, or breach of a fiduciary duty. View "First Ark. Bank & Trust v. Gill Elrod Ragon Owen & Sherman, P.A." on Justia Law

Based on a mortgage fraud scheme that caused the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to insure loans for unqualified applicants based upon forged documents and false information provided by Wendlandt, he pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. 371, and was sentenced to 42 months in prison. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the district court’s computation of financial loss for purposes of determining his offense level under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1 and to the court’s decision to vary upward from the advisory Guidelines range of 24 to months in prison. View "United States v. Wendlandt" on Justia Law

1st Fidelity Loan Servicing initiated a foreclosure by advertisement to collect the debt secured by a mortgage on the home of Respondent. 1st Fidelity subsequently purchased the property at the foreclosure sale. Respondent filed a complaint seeking a declaration that the sale was null and void and the recovery of monetary damages, alleging that 1st Fidelity failed to comply with certain statutory requirements. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of 1st Fidelity on the ground that it had substantially complied with the relevant statutes. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that Minnesota's foreclosure by advertisement statute requires strict compliance and that a foreclosing party's failure to strictly comply renders the foreclosure void. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a party must strictly comply with Minn. Stat. 580.02(3), which requires that all assignments of a mortgage be recorded before a party is entitled to make a foreclosure by advertisement; and (2) because 1st Fidelity did not strictly comply with section 580.02(3), the foreclosure was void. Remanded. View "Ruiz v. 1st Fidelity Loan Servicing, LLC " on Justia Law

Debtor filed for leave to appeal the bankruptcy court's interlocutory judgment in the district court. While the motion was pending, the bankruptcy court, sua sponte, certified its judgment for direct appeal to this court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 158(d)(2)(A)(i) and (iii). The court agreed with the bankruptcy court's ruling on cross-motions for partial summary judgment in favor of FGB that the Multiple Indebtedness Mortgage that FGB recorded was valid and that the property underlying that mortgage, the Deluxe Motel, secured both the loan FGB made to debtor and the loan FGB made to a second entity. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Hari Aum, L.L.C. v. First Guaranty Bank" on Justia Law

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, as nominee for two lenders (collectively, Plaintiffs), held mortgages on Lot 456. For the property owner's failure to pay his water bill, the Pawtucket Water Supply Board (PWSB) auctioned the lot. PWSB issued a deed conveying the title in the property to Amy Realty. Amy Realty subsequently discovered that the property PWSB had intended to auction had been mistakenly listed as Lot 486 on the tax sale notices and deed. Amy Realty then obtained a corrective deed from the PWSB conveying title to Lot 456. Amy Realty subsequently filed a petition to foreclose on Plaintiffs' rights of redemption in Lot 456. Plaintiffs filed this action seeking to vacate the final decree of disclosure, alleging that the corrective deed changing the lot number from 486 to 456 was invalid and this infirmity rendered the foreclosure decree void. The superior court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the corrective deed obtained in this case was null and void because it was not recorded within sixty days of the tax sale; and (2) the final foreclosure decree may be vacated because the tax sale was invalid. View "Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. DePina" on Justia Law

Plaintiff borrowed $249,900 from Lehman Brothers Bank to finance the purchase of a home, and he signed an adjustable rate note that evidenced the debt. Plaintiff and his wife (Plaintiffs) then executed a mortgage on the property that secured the loan. Even though the note was made payable to the lender, the mortgage was granted to Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as nominee for the lender and the lender's subject and assigns. Plaintiffs subsequently defaulted on the note, and MERS initiated foreclosure proceedings. Plaintiffs subsequently commenced an action seeking to prevent MERS from exercising the power of sale contained in the mortgage, arguing that only a mortgagee was permitted to exercise the power of sale and that MERS was merely a nominee-mortgagee without the authority to foreclose. The superior court denied Plaintiffs' request and entered judgment on behalf of Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that MERS had both contractual and statutory authority to foreclose and exercise the power of sale. View "Bucci v. Lehman Bros. Bank, FSB" on Justia Law

To help finance her purchase of a condominium (condo) for $395,000, Mary McCulley sought a residential loan from Heritage Bank (Bank) for $300,000. American Land Title Company (ALTC) provided a commitment for title insurance. McCulley signed a promissory note and signed a deed of trust as collateral. Subsequently, ALTC changed the designated use of the condo in the deed from residential to commercial. After closing, McCulley discovered the Bank had issued her an eighteen-month, $300,000 commercial property loan rather than the thirty-year residential property loan for which she applied. When she was unable to obtain long-term refinancing on the property, McCulley signed a warranty deed transferring ownership of the condo to the Central Asia Institute and used the proceeds to pay off the loan. McCulley then sued ALTC and the Bank (collectively, Defendants) for, inter alia, negligence, breach of contract, slander of title, and fraud. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court's order of summary judgment in favor of the Bank on the issue of fraud, as genuine issues of material fact existed relative to McCulley's claim of fraud on the part of the Bank; and (2) otherwise affirmed. View "McCulley v. Am. Land Title Co." on Justia Law

Conlin refinanced with a loan from Bergin, secured by a mortgage containing a provision that recognized MERS as a nominee for Bergin and Bergin’s successors. Bergin sold the note to the Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit, for which U.S. Bank was trustee. The mortgage was held by MERS, and serviced by GMAC. In 2008, MERS assigned the mortgage to “U.S. Bank National Association as trustee.” In 2010 Orlans sent Conlan notice (Mich. Comp. Laws 600.3205a), of default and of his ability to request loan modification, stating that it was sent on behalf of GMAC as “the creditor to whom your mortgage debt is owed or the servicing agent for the creditor.” In 2011, Orlans published notice of foreclosure sale, stating that “the mortgage is now held by U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee by assignment.” The notice was also posted on the property, which was sold at a sheriff’s sale on March 31. On October 28, 2011, Conlin sought damages and to have the foreclosure sale set aside. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Even if the “robo-signed” assignment were invalid, Conlin was not prejudiced. He has not clearly shown fraud in the foreclosure process, as required for a challenge after expiration of the six-month redemption period. View "Conlin v. Mrtg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc." on Justia Law