Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

This case concerned the termination of an employee, plaintiff, in the wake of an investigation into the disappearance of approximately $58,000 from a branch of Washington Mutual Bank (defendant). Plaintiff asserted that defendant unlawfully asked him to submit to a polygraph test and unlawfully failed to notify plaintiff of his right to continue his employer-provided health insurance for a period after his termination. The court held that because defendant requested plaintiff to submit to a polygraph test in connection with an "ongoing investigation" of a specific incident in which defendant had a "reasonable suspicion" that plaintiff was involved, the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA), 29 U.S.C. 2002(1), claim. The court held, however, that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for defendant on plaintiff's improper notice claim under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) 29 U.S.C. 1163(2), 1166, where the court should have considered the claims on the merits because it was timely filed. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

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.

Plaintiffs filed a purported class action as an adversary proceeding before the bankruptcy court alleging that their mortgage lender, Wells Fargo Bank N.A. ("Wells Fargo"), violated various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules by failing to disclose certain fees on the proof of claim it filed in plaintiffs' Chapter 13 bankruptcy case. At issue was whether the district court erred in affirming the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo on plaintiffs' claims that Wells Fargo violated the automatic stay provisions in 11 U.S.C. 362; their claims that Wells Fargo violated 11 U.S.C 506(b) and Bankruptcy Rule 2016 by failing to disclose the fees; and their objection to the proof of claim. The court considered each of plaintiffs' automatic stay violations under section 362 and held that Wells Fargo was entitled to summary judgment on each claim. The court concluded that bankruptcy courts have not uniformly reached a conclusion supporting the proposition that pursuant to section 506(b), Rule 2016, or both of these provisions, a secured creditor must disclose and obtain court approval of post-petition legal expenses. Therefore, the court held that these provisions were not violated when a creditor merely recorded costs it had incurred in association with a mortgagee's bankruptcy for internal bookkeeping purposes and made no attempt to collect the fees or otherwise add them to the debtor's balance. Accordingly, to the extent plaintiffs' disclosure claims relied on events that have occurred during the course of their Chapter 13 case, the district court did not err in affirming the bankruptcy court's order granting summary judgment. The court further held that Wells Fargo's failure to include the proof of claim fees on the proof of claim did not provide a valid basis for an objection; and as to this amount, plaintiffs have identified no reason why such amount was unenforceable. Therefore, Wells Fargo was entitled to summary judgment on this claim.

This case involved a residential construction scheme, which required the investor, the mortgage broker, the builder, and the bank providing the builder with the funds to construct the house to enter into certain independent contractual arrangements. Petitioners, investors whose builders went under and left them with unfinished houses or vacant lots, sought a writ of mandamus asking the court to order the district court to require respondent, the bank's executive vice-president for mortgage lending, to make a restitution in an amount equivalent to one point of their construction loans. The court held that the cause of petitioners' loss was not respondent, but the fact that the builders became insolvent and were unable or unwilling to complete their work. Therefore, the writ of mandamus was denied where petitioners assumed the risk that the builder might walk off the job; that if it did, the bank would declare the construction loan in default; and that, as the bank's borrower, they would be liable for the draws the builders had received plus interest.

Plaintiff filed a class action suit against JP Morgan Chase Bank ("Chase") alleging violations of Fla. Stat. 655.85 and unjust enrichment where she was charged a fee to cash a check as a non-account holder at Chase. At issue was whether the district court properly granted Chase's motion to dismiss both plaintiff's claims as preempted by the National Bank Act ("NBA"), 12 U.S.C. 21 et seq. The court affirmed dismissal where Fla. Stat. 655.85 was preempted by the Office of Comptroller of the Currency's ("OCC") regulations promulgated pursuant to the NBA where Congress clearly intended that the OCC be empowered to regulate banking and banking-related services. The court also held that because plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim relied on identical facts as her claim under the state statute, it too was preempted.