Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Debtor executed a Balloon Note and Deed of Trust in favor of Wells Fargo for the purchase of a home and subsequently filed for bankruptcy. On appeal, Wells Fargo challenged the district court's amended order granting debtor's motion for summary judgment, finding that Wells Fargo was judicially estopped from filing a claim in the Second Bankruptcy for any amounts that could have been, but were not, claimed in the First Bankruptcy. Because the district court abused its discretion in finding that Wells Fargo adopted inconsistent positions in debtor's bankruptcy proceedings and that the bankruptcy court's acceptance of Wells Fargo's claims in the First Bankruptcy was not negated by debtor's dismissal without discharge, the application of judicial estoppel was not warranted. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Oparaji" on Justia Law

This case arose when Highland filed suit against Bank of America for breach of contract and promissory estoppel, alleging that the terms sought by Bank of America in a debt-trade agreement did not conform to the parties' oral agreement. Highland appealed the district court's dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of its claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel. Because the court found that the district court was justified in dismissing Highland's promissory estoppel claim, but that it erred in dismissing Highland's breach of contract claim, the court affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part. View "Highland Capital Mgmt. LP v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

Countrywide appealed a class certification order of the bankruptcy court. Plaintiffs are former chapter 13 debtors with mortgages serviced by Countrywide. Plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that the fees Countrywide charged while plaintiffs' bankruptcy cases were still pending were unreasonable, unapproved, and undisclosed under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2016(a). Because the bankruptcy court's decision was not an abuse of discretion, the court affirmed its grant of class certification for plaintiff's injunctive relief claim. Because the court's precedence rejected the fail-safe class prohibition, the court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion when it defined the class in the present case. Because the court concluded that Countrywide's Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration was not based on newly discovered evidence, the court did not revisit the bankruptcy court's separate merits denial of the motion. View "Rodriguez, et al v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc." on Justia Law

Vanderbilt sued to foreclose against appellees for defaulting on their installment payments on a mobile home and appellees responded by claiming that they had been released from any underlying debt on the retail installment contract. Intervenors claimed that Vanderbilt, CMH, and their parent company CHI, had filed false liens on their land as collateral for appellees' retail installment contract. The court affirmed the judgment and award of damages with respect to intervenors' claims. The court reversed and remanded the judgment as to Vanderbilt's claims against appellees, as well as appellees' counterclaims. View "Vanderbilt Mtge. and Fin. Inc. v. Flores, et al." on Justia Law

This case arose when Mirant, an energy company, sought to expand its European operations by acquiring nine power islands from General Electric. When the power island deal fell through, Mirant made payments pursuant to a guaranty and soon thereafter sought bankruptcy protection. Mirant, as debtor-in-possession, sued Commerzbank and other lenders in bankruptcy court to avoid the guaranty and to recover the funds Mirant paid pursuant to the guaranty. After Mirant's bankruptcy plan was confirmed MCAR, plaintiff, substituted into the case for Mirant. Commerzbank and other lenders, defendants, filed a motion to dismiss based on Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The district court subsequently denied defendants' motion to dismiss based on plaintiff's alleged lack of standing. Thereafter, the district court granted summary judgment for defendants. Both sides appealed. While the court agreed that the district court correctly determined that there was standing to bring the avoidance claim, the court vacated the judgment of dismissal because the district court erroneously applied Georgia state law rather than New York state law to the avoidance claim. View "MC Asset Recovery LLC v. Commerzbank A.G., et al." on Justia Law

IFS and 17 affiliated organizations (collectively, Interamericas) were debtors in a series of Chapter 7 cases. This appeal arose from eight collective adversary proceedings, which a trustee of IFS brought against appellants for avoidance of fraudulent transfers under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code and Chapter 24 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code. Appellants appealed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court judgment of over $3 million in favor of the trustee. The court held that control could be sufficient to show ownership of what was ultimately a fact-based inquiry that would vary according to the peculiar circumstances of each case. The court also held that the lower courts' findings of ownership were not clearly erroneous and, moreover, comported with precedent and the court's holding today where IFS exercised control over the accounts at issue such that it had de facto ownership over the accounts, as well as the funds contained. The court further held that the record supported the lower courts' findings of fraudulent transfer. Specifically, IFS faced pending lawsuits and mounting debts just as it liquidated nearly all Interamericas' assets and evidence that IFS operated as a fraudulent enterprise at the time of transfer supported this finding of fraudulent intent. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

This appeal was from the grant of summary judgment in a diversity case in which plaintiff was a limited partner in a partnership that received a loan from defendant. The dispute stemmed from a limited guaranty agreement between the Bank and plaintiffs, who became a guarantor of the loan received by the partnership. At issue was whether the guaranty agreement only required payment from the guarantor once the balance of the outstanding loan was $500,000 or less. The district court ruled that the payment was immediately due regardless of whether the balance of the loan had been reduced to $500,000. Because the court found the language of the guaranty agreement ambiguous, the court held that the district court erred by accepting the Bank's interpretation and granting summary judgment. Therefore, the court vacated the summary judgment and remanded to the district court. Further, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for leave to file a supplemental claim. Finally, the court vacated the order awarding attorney's fees.

Court-appointed receiver brought suit against Wells Fargo for conversion and breach of contract with respect to a cashier's check purchased by W Financial Group that Wells Fargo reaccepted for deposit into an account other than that of the named payee, without the proper endorsement. The district court found Wells Fargo liable for conversion. On appeal, Wells Fargo argued that the district court erred in finding that it converted the check and in rejecting certain defenses. The court held that because Wells Fargo made payment on the cashier's check to CA Houston, an entity that was not entitled to enforce the instrument, Wells Fargo was liable for conversion under Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code 3.3420. The court also agreed that Wells Fargo was liable for conversion because it deposited the cashier's check without the necessary indorsement. The court further held that Wells Fargo could not rely upon the condition precedent in its Account Agreement to void liability for conversion of the cashier's check; the district court did not err in denying Wells Fargo's in pari delicto defense; and the court need not address the breach of contract issue. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

The United States appealed the district court's dismissal of a superseding indictment because it did not state a crime against defendant for knowingly and willfully making false statements to a financial institution insured by the FDIC and knowingly making false statements for the purpose of influencing the action of a bank insured by the FDIC. Defendant made the allegedly false statements on loan applications to refinance his residence where he failed to list an illegal campaign loan under "outstanding debts." The court agreed with the district court's conclusion that defendant's statements were literally true because the illegal loan was an absolute nullity and consequently was not a debt that ever existed.

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for appellees (GNOFCU and Cumis). The district court found that GNOFCU did not violate either the Federal Credit Union Act, 12 U.S.C. 1790b, or La. Rev. State. Ann. 23:967(A), by terminating plaintiff's employment after she complained of possible fraud in the company's lending practices. Because the court found that the district court minimized key evidence in finding no causal link between plaintiff's termination, demotion, and pay decrease, and her National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) complaints, and because section 23:967 seemed to offer broader protections than its federal counterpart, the court found that the district court's grant of summary judgment was improper. Accordingly, the judgment was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings.