Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Capmark Bank appealed a preliminary injunction entered in favor of RGR, LLC; MB Park, LLC; TTM MB Park, LLC; Robert G. Randall; and T. Todd Martin III (referred to collectively as "RGR") which enjoined Capmark from foreclosing on certain real property that served as the primary collateral for a loan from Capmark to RGR, LCC, MB Park, LLC, and TTM MB Park, LLC. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded RGR failed to establish the requisite elements entitling it to a preliminary injunction. The Court therefore reversed the trial court's judgment issuing the injunction.

Robert S. Grant Construction, Inc. (the corporation), Robert S. Grant (RSG), and Pam E. Grant (PEG) (collectively referred to as "the Grants") appealed an order striking their jury demands in an action commenced by Frontier Bank (the bank) against the Grants and others alleging breach of contract, fraud, and the fraudulent conveyance of real estate. This case arose out of a loan from the bank to the corporation. The loan ultimately involved a number of related agreements, including a construction-loan agreement between the corporation and the bank and a series of "continuing guaranties," whereby RSG personally guaranteed repayment of the loan. The Supreme Court was unable to reach the merits of the Grants' contentions, and dismissed the appeal because, despite the invocation of Rule 54(b), the trial court's order was not final and appealable.

Plaintiffs sued Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. under the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act (MSMLA), Mo. Rev. State. 408.231-.241, alleging, for a putative class, that Countrywide charged them unauthorized interest and fees in violation of section 408.233.1. The district court granted summary judgment for Countrywide and plaintiffs appealed. The court held that because interest accrued for the two days before plaintiffs receive the loan discount and settlement/closing fee as a result of the alleged MSMLA violations, plaintiffs have raised a material issue of fact as to whether the alleged violations caused their loss. The court also held that because the document processing/delivery fee was not included in section 408.233's exclusive list of authorized charges, it violated the MSMLA. The court further held that because the document processing/delivery fee violated the MSMLA, the prepaid interest Countrywide collected on plaintiffs' loan was an additional violation of the statute. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

This case stemmed from a putative class action challenging origination and foreclosure procedures for home loans maintained within the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS). Plaintiffs appealed from the dismissal of their First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. The court was unpersuaded that plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to support their claims. Although plaintiffs alleged that aspects of the MERS system were fraudulent, they could not establish that they were misinformed about the MERS system, relied on any misinformation in entering into their home loans, or were injured as a result of the misinformation. Although plaintiffs contended that they could state a claim for wrongful foreclosure, Arizona state law did not recognize this cause of action and their claim was without a basis. Plaintiffs' claim depended upon the conclusion that any home loan within the MERS system was unenforceable through a foreclosure sale, but that conclusion was unsupported by the facts and law on which they relied. Therefore, because plaintiffs failed to establish a plausible basis for relief on these and their other claims raised on appeal, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint without leave to amend.

This case stemmed from the enactment of St. 2010, c. 258, on August 7, 2010, which prohibited institutional lenders and certain financial institutions who owned foreclosed properties from evicting residential tenants without just cause. At issue was whether the act required dismissal of a no-cause summary process case that was already pending when the act went into effect, or whether the application of the act to such a case was impermissibly retroactive. The court held that the provision of the act that prevented eviction without just cause was properly applied to protect all residential tenants on foreclosed properties who, on or after August 7, 2010, had yet to vacate or be removed from the premises by an eviction, even where the owner purchased the property before the act's effective date, and initiated a summary process action before that date. Because the tenant, in this case, was still residing on the property on August 7, 2010, and the owner was seeking to evict him without just cause, the court held that the Housing Court judge properly applied the act to dismiss the pending claim for possession.

Plaintiff Blanca Gonzalez, and Monserate Diaz purchased a home as tenants in common. Diaz borrowed the downpayment from Cityscape Mortgage Corporation (Cityscape) and executed a note. Plaintiff did not sign the note. Plaintiff and Diaz secured that loan by mortgaging their home to Cityscape. Over time, Plaintiff fell behind on the payments and U.S. Bank obtained a foreclosure judgment. The trial court ordered that the home be sold to satisfy the judgment. Before the sheriff’s sale, Plaintiff entered into a written agreement with Defendant Wilshire Credit Corporation (Wilshire), U.S. Bank’s servicing agent. Plaintiff was represented by a Legal Services attorney who helped negotiate the agreement. Plaintiff missed four payments to Wilshire. A scheduled sheriff’s sale was cancelled when the parties entered into a second agreement. Plaintiff was contacted and dealt with directly; neither Wilshire nor U.S. Bank notified the Legal Services attorney. Although Plaintiff had not missed a single payment required by the second agreement, instead of dismissing the foreclosure action as promised, Wilshire sent a letter to Plaintiff noting that the second agreement was about to expire and that a new agreement needed to be negotiated to avoid foreclosure. Plaintiff contacted the Legal Services attorney. When the attorney questioned Wilshire, it could not explain how it had come to the arrears amount set in the second agreement, or why Plaintiff was not deemed current on the loan. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that Wilshire and U.S. Bank engaged in deceptive and unconscionable practices in violation of the CFA. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Wilshire and U.S. Bank, finding that the CFA did not apply to post-judgment settlement agreements entered into to stave off a foreclosure sale. The Appellate Division reversed and reinstated plaintiff’s CFA claim. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the post-foreclosure-judgment agreements in this case constituted stand-alone extensions of credit. In fashioning and collecting on such a loan, a lender or its servicing agent cannot use unconscionable practices in violation of the CFA.

Plaintiff filed a voluntary Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition and successfully sought to avoid a lien on her manufactured home held by defendant. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and Sixth Circuit affirmed. The mortgage did not originally cover the manufactured home, which was personal property until 2007,when a state court entered an in rem judgment and order of sale converting it to an improvement to real property. After that, the home was covered by the mortgage. The conversion, unlike the mortgage, was involuntary as to the plaintiff, so she had standing under 11 U.S.C. 522(h) to avoid the lien.

After refinancing her mortgage in 2006, plaintiff filed suit under the Truth In Lending Act, 15 U.S.C 1601, claiming failure to properly notify her of her right to cancel the mortgage. The court instructed the jury that, because her signature was on the notice of right to cancel, something more than her testimony was needed to rebut the presumption that she received it. The jury returned a verdict for defendants. The Third Circuit vacated and remanding, stating that there is no basis in TILA or the Federal Rules of Evidence for the instruction and the error was not harmless. The signature does no more than create a rebuttable presumption of delivery.

Count One of the multi-count indictment in this case charged Robert and Patrick Singletary, and others, with conspiring between 1997 and September 16, 2004, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, to commit three offenses: (1) to defraud a federally insured bank, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1344; (2) to make false representations with respect to material facts to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001; and (3) to defraud purchasers of residential property and mortgage lenders, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343. The Singletarys eventually pled guilty to Count One to the extent that it alleged a conspiracy to commit the section 1343 offense in addition to the section 1001 offense. At issue was whether the district court abused its discretion in ordering restitution in the sum of $1 million. The court held that the district court failed to determine by a preponderance of the evidence which of the 56 mortgages the loan officers handled was obtained through a false "gift" letter, a false "credit explanation" letter, or a false employment verification form; and where fraud was found, to determine the extent of the actual loss HUD could have incurred due to the mortgage's foreclosure. Accordingly, the court vacated the restitution provisions and remanded for further proceedings.

Plaintiff filed suit against, inter alia, U.S. Bank, N.A. (U.S. Bank) seeking to invalidate the foreclosure and sale of his home. Plaintiff alleged that the mortgage that the lender relied upon in foreclosing on his home was defective and therefore could not provide a valid basis for foreclosure under Minnesota law and that the lender violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601, et seq., by failing to provide required notice to plaintiff of his ability to cancel the transaction and by refusing to cancel the mortgage when plaintiff exercised his right to rescind the mortgage on those grounds. The court declined to reach plaintiff's Minnesota Statute 523.23 argument where plaintiff conceded he never cited to this provision to the district court at trial nor in his motion for new trial or amended verdict. The court also held that plaintiff's wife was authorized to receive the Notice of Right to Cancel on plaintiff's behalf; plaintiff cited to no evidence or legal authority that the second Notice of Right to Cancel was required under TILA; plaintiff had no standing to challenge the lender's failure to send the second notice to his former wife; and plaintiff had not overcome the rebuttable presumption of delivery of the required notice to him. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.