Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

In this purported class action on behalf of borrowers holding home mortgage loans serviced by Bayview, plaintiffs claimed that Bayview improperly added fees to borrowers' accounts in violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act, W. Va. Code 46A-1-101 through 46A-8-102. At issue was whether, under the statute of limitations, "the due date of the last scheduled payment of the agreement" was June 5, 2007, the loan acceleration date set by Bayview. The court concluded that the acceleration date was the operative date for purposes of applying the statute of limitations, because no further payments were scheduled after that date. Thus, the court affirmed the district court's judgment that the statute of limitations began to run from the acceleration date, and that, therefore, plaintiffs' claims were time barred. View "Delebreau v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC" on Justia Law

Christa Albice and Karen Tecca (hereinafter Tecca) inherited the property at issue in this case. In 2003, Tecca borrowed $115,500 against the property. The loan was serviced by Option One Mortgage Corporation (Option One), and Premier Mortgage Services of Washington (Premier) acted as the trustee. In 2006, Tecca defaulted on the loan and received a notice of trustee's sale. In July 2006, Tecca negotiated and entered into a forbearance agreement to cure the default. The trustee's sale originally set for September 8, 2006 was continued six times. Each continuance was tied to the payments Tecca made under the Forbearance Agreement. The foreclosure sale finally took place on February 16, 2007. Through an agent, Petitioner Ron Dickinson, successfully bid on the property. Tecca first learned the property was sold when Dickinson told Tecca they no longer owned it and needed to leave. Dickinson then filed an unlawful detainer action and sought to quiet title. Tecca countersued, seeking to quiet title in an action to set aside the nonjudicial sale. Tecca also brought suit against Option One and Premier, but the trial court dismissed the action based on an arbitration clause. Dickinson moved for summary judgment to establish that he was a BFP and entitled to quiet title. Tecca also moved for summary judgment, arguing the foreclosure sale should have been set aside because the sale occurred after the statutory deadline and Premier was not a qualified trustee with authority to conduct the sale. The trial court granted Dickinson's motion, ruling that Dickinson was a BFP and despite procedural noncompliance by the trustee. Following trial, the court concluded Premier was authorized to act as the trustee, quieted title in Dickinson, and awarded Dickinson damages. Tecca appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, setting the sale aside. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals: the nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings were "marred" by repeated statutory noncompliance. The financial institution acting as the lender also appeared to be acting as the trustee under a different name; the lender repeatedly accepted late payments and, at its sole discretion, rejected only the final late payment that would have cured the default; and the trustee conducted a sale without statutory authority. The Court concluded the sale was invalid. View "Albice v. Premier Mortg. Servs. of Wash., Inc." on Justia Law

This foreclosure action involved a dispute between two creditors, Wells Fargo Financial South Dakota, Inc. and Highmark Federal Credit Union about the priority of their respective mortgage liens against a property. Both parties asserted that they were entitled to first priority. The trial court found that, despite Highmark's statutory priority, under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, Wells Fargo was entitled to first priority. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) equity in this case did not require the trial court to pierce the South Dakota recording statutes; and (2) because Highmark filed its lien on the property prior to Wells Fargo, Highmark had priority. View "Highmark Fed. Credit Union v. Wells Fargo Fin. S.D., Inc." on Justia Law

This case presented the question of whether the doctrine of equitable subrogation may be used to reorder the priority of a mortgage lien where the mortgage holder had constructive but not actual knowledge of a pre-existing lien when it paid off an earlier mortgage as part of a refinancing deal and there was no fraud or other misconduct that would have prevented the discovery of the lien. The trial court applied the doctrine to reorder the priority of liens. The court of appeals reversed, finding that the doctrine did not apply under the facts of this case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because equitable subrogation is not available to a lienholder who has actual or constructive knowledge of a preexisting lien, the court of appeals was correct in concluding that the remedy was not available to the mortgage holder. View "Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc. v. Roberts" on Justia Law

Between 2004 and 2008, Brown ran an elaborate scheme that tricked lenders into issuing fraudulent mortgage loans in Chicago and Las Vegas. Brown recruited or directed dozens of individuals: lawyers, accountants, loan officers, bank employees, realtors, home builders, and nominee buyers. Of his accomplices, 32 people were criminally charged. The Chicago scheme resulted in about 150 fraudulent loans, totaling more than $95 million in proceeds from victim lenders. The Las Vegas scheme resulted in approximately 33 fraudulent loans totaling about $16 million. Brown entered guilty pleas and was sentenced to 216 months’ imprisonment for the Las Vegas scheme and 240 months’ imprisonment for the Chicago scheme, to run concurrently. The district court also imposed a restitution amount of more than $32.2 million. The Seventh Circuit affirmed Brown’s sentence, rejecting a challenge to the loss calculation. The court remanded the 66-month sentence and $7.1 restitution order against another participant in the Chicago scheme because the court incorrectly determined the number of victims. View "United States v. Love" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit in Minnesota state court against her mortgage lender, seeking legal and equitable relief from the lender's foreclosure and sale of her home. The court held that, because there was no dispute as to whether the foreclosure was actually postponed, Minn. Stat. 580.07, subdiv. 1 was inapplicable. The court also held that the Minnesota Credit Agreement Statute (MCAS), Minn. Stat. 513.33, subdiv. 2, prohibited the enforcement of an oral promise to postpone a foreclosure sale and that the lender was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's promissory estoppel claim. Finally, the court held that plaintiff did not raise a genuine question of material fact as to whether she detrimentally relied on the lender's promise. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on Counts I-V. View "Brisbin v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

These consolidated cases involved two properties purchased by John Hogan. Each parcel became subject to a deed of trust when Hogan took out loans from Long Beach Mortgage Company. Hogan was delinquent on both loans, which triggered foreclosure proceedings. The trustee recorded a notice of sale for the first parcel, naming Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) as the beneficiary. A notice of trustee's sale recorded for the second parcel identified Deutsche Bank as the beneficiary. Hogan filed lawsuits seeking to enjoin the trustees' sales unless the beneficiaries proved they were entitled to collect on the respective notes. The superior court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that Arizona's non-judicial foreclosure statute did not require presentation of the original note before commencing foreclosure proceedings. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and affirmed the superior court's orders, holding that Hogan was not entitled to relief because the deed of trust statutes impose no obligation on the beneficiary to "show the note" before the trustee conducts a non-judicial foreclosure. View "Hogan v. Washington Mut. Bank. N.A." on Justia Law

Rachelle Hunter received a loan from Highmark Federal Credit Union to purchase a home and property. A flood damaged the home a few years later, and Hunter had no flood insurance. Hunter filed suit against Highmark, arguing that Highmark was negligent in failing to warn her to purchase flood insurance and in failing to purchase the insurance at her expense. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Highmark. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Hunter's negligence claim failed as a matter of law because she could not show that Highmark owed her a duty, and accordingly, summary judgment was appropriate. View "Highmark Fed. Credit Union v. Hunter" on Justia Law

Petitioners Club Vista Financial Services and others (Club Vista) entered into a real estate development project with real parties in interest Scott Financial Corporation and others (Scott Financial). When a loan guaranteed by some of the Petitioners went into default, Club Vista filed an action against Scott Financial. During discovery, Scott Financial obtained a deposition subpoena for Club Vista's attorney, K. Layne Morrill. An Arizona court granted Morrill's motion to quash the subpoena. The Nevada district court, however, denied Morrill's motion for a protective order and permitted Scott Financial to depose Morrill as to the factual matters supporting the allegations in the complaint. The Supreme Court granted Morrill's petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition in part after adopting the framework espoused by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Shelton v. American Motors Corp., which states that the party seeking to depose opposing counsel must demonstrate that the information sought cannot be obtained by other means, is relevant and nonprivileged, and is crucial to the preparation of the case. Because the district court did not analyze the Shelton factors, the Court directed the district court to evaluate whether, applying the Shelton factors, Scott Financial may depose Morrill. View "Club Vista Fin. Servs., LLC v. Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Federal tax assessments against husband arose out of his failure to file returns, report income, or pay tax, 1986 through 1993. Unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest totaled $901,052.17 as of January 2010. Wife paid $40,227.30 in full satisfaction of a separate assessment based on an audit of her 2000 return, resulting in dismissal of claims against her personally. The district court granted summary judgment to the government with respect to the assessment against husband and reduced the tax liability to judgment. The government moved for foreclosure of the lien and sale of the entire property. Since the property was held by the couple as tenants by the entirety, husband’s individual tax lien attached to his partial contingent survivorship interest in the property, which would have minimal value if sold separately. The court found that the property would bring $160,000 at a foreclosure sale and was subject to a mortgage of $14,572.36. Wife, age 60, testified to her limited income and sentimental attachment to the home where she had lived for 29 years. The court declined to force a sale (26 U.S.C. 7403). The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded for reconsideration under the "Rodgers" factors. View "United States v. Winsper" on Justia Law