Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Appellant filed an action against a Bank seeking to foreclose his judgment lien against property owned by the Bank. Wells Fargo subsequently filed a motion to dismiss Appellant’s complaint because the judgment lien had expired while the foreclosure action was pending. The district court granted the Bank’s motion and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, Appellant argued that the Court should overturn its precedent holding that a foreclosure action does not toll the expiration of a judgment or hold that the Bank should be estopped from asserting the expiration of the judgment because the Bank unfairly extended the foreclosure litigation past the judgment’s expiration. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) filing a foreclosure action does not toll the expiration of a judgment; and (2) principles of equity do not support tolling the expiration of Appellant’s judgment. View "Gildea v. Wells Fargo Bank" on Justia Law

CLC’s principal, Erwin, was general counsel for the bank. CLC deferred invoicing the bank in 2008 when it fell on hard times. In 2009 the Office of Thrift Supervision put the bank into receivership. CLC claims that, days before the takeover, the bank granted it security interests in bank properties. CLC waited months to record attorney liens for the security interests. CLC sought $176,750 in deferred legal fees. The FDIC denied the claim. CLC initially denied possessing the original retainer agreement, claiming oral agreements, until, in 2013, Erwin produced a 1989 agreement. The district court granted the FDIC summary judgment, finding the evidence prejudicial and the delay not “substantially justified.” The fees arrangement did not comply with 12 U.S.C. 1823(e)’s documentation requirements and the security interests were similarly deficient and “taken in contemplation of” insolvency. The court rejected CLC’s argument that the statutory documentation requirements and the D’Oench doctrine (an estoppel rule shielding the FDIC from claims and defenses based on unwritten agreements that reduce bank assets) apply only to secret agreements affecting traditional banking transactions, like loans. The court acknowledged evidence indicating that Erwin and the bank may have backdated the security interests. The Sixth Circuit reversed; D’Oench and its statutory progeny do not apply to its legal services arrangement with the bank. View "Commercial Law Corp., P.C. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp." on Justia Law

The Rudgears, the owners of Wildwood Creek Ranch, LLC, borrowed money, through Wildwood, from the predecessor to BMO Harris Bank to finance construction of a home on a vacant lot. The loan was secured by a deed of trust. The home was never built, and the property remained undeveloped. Wildwood later defaulted on its loan, and BMO foreclosed on the property. A third party successfully bid for the property. BMO subsequently sued Wildwood and the Rudgears for the deficiency. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding that the Rudgears intended to use the property for a single-family residence and therefore qualified for anti-deficiency protection. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Arizona’s residential anti-deficiency statute does not bar a deficiency judgment against an owner of vacant property. Remanded for entry of partial summary judgment in favor of BMO. View "BMO Harris Bank, N.A. v. Wildwood Creek Ranch, LLC" on Justia Law

Hana Financial and Hana Bank both provide financial services to individuals in the U.S. When Hana Financial sued Hana Bank for trademark infringement, Hana Bank invoked the tacking doctrine, under which lower courts have provided that a trademark user may make certain modifications to its mark over time while, in limited circumstances, retaining its priority position. The district court adopted in substantial part the jury instruction on tacking proposed by Hana Bank. The jury returned a verdict in Hana Bank’s favor. Affirming, the Ninth Circuit explained that the tacking inquiry was an exceptionally limited and highly fact-sensitive matter reserved for juries, not judges. A unanimous Supreme Court affirmed. Whether two trademarks may be tacked for purposes of determining priority is a jury question. Lower courts have held that two marks may be tacked when they are considered to be “legal equivalents,” i.e., they “create the same, continuing commercial impression,” which “must be viewed through the eyes of a consumer.” When the relevant question is how an ordinary person or community would make an assessment, the jury is generally the decision-maker that ought to provide the fact-intensive answer. The “legal equivalents” test may involve a legal standard, but such mixed questions of law and fact have typically been resolved by juries. Any concern that a jury may improperly apply the relevant legal standard can be remedied by crafting careful jury instructions. View "Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank" on Justia Law

The London InterBank Offered Rate (LIBOR) is a reference point in determining interest rates for financial instruments in the U.S. and globally. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) established a multidistrict litigation for cases alleging that banks understated their borrowing costs, depressing LIBOR and enabling the banks to pay lower interest rates on financial instruments sold to investors. Over 60 actions were consolidated, including the Gelboim class action, which raised a single claim that banks, acting in concert, had violated federal antitrust law. The district court dismissed all antitrust claims and granted certifications under Rule 54(b), which authorizes parties with multiple-claim complaints to immediately appeal dismissal of discrete claims. The Second Circuit dismissed the Gelboim appeal because the order appealed from did not dispose of all of the claims in the consolidated action. A unanimous Supreme Court reversed. The order dismissing their case in its entirety removed Gelboim from the consolidated proceeding, triggering their right to appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1291, which gives the courts of appeals jurisdiction over appeals from “all final decisions of the district courts.” Because cases consolidated for MDL pretrial proceedings ordinarily retain their separate identities, an order disposing of one of the discrete cases in its entirety qualifies under section 1291 as an appealable final decision. The JPML’s authority to transfer civil actions for consolidated pretrial proceedings, 28 U.S.C. 1407, refers to individual “actions,” not to a monolithic multidistrict “action” and indicates Congress’ anticipation that, during pretrial proceedings, final decisions might be rendered in one or more of the consolidated actions. The Gelboim plaintiffs are no longer participants in the consolidated proceedings. View "Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff obtained a mortgage loan from Equity One, Inc. As security for the note, Plaintiff executed a mortgage on the property in favor of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). The note was twice transferred, eventually landing in the possession of Deutsche Bank, National Trust Company. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. was retained to service the loan. Meanwhile, MERS, as nominee for Equity One, assigned its interest in the mortgage to Deutsche Bank. After Litton and Deutsche Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings, Plaintiff filed an action alleging that the assignment from MERS to Deutsche Bank was invalid for lack of authority. When Plaintiff sought to depose a MERS designee, MERS filed a motion for a protective order, arguing that Plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the assignment. The superior court denied the motion. MERS filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. Litton and Deutsche Bank then moved for summary judgment, which the hearing justice granted. The Supreme Court (1) quashed the order denying MERS’ motion for a protective order, holding that Plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the assignment in question; and (2) affirmed the grant of summary judgment for Litton and Deutsche Bank, holding that MERS had the authority to assign the mortgage. View "Genao v. Litton Loan Servicing, L.P." on Justia Law

Imperial Capital Bank granted a loan to Main and West, LLC in the sum of $607,500. Main and West signed a promissory note as security for the loan, and two individuals personally guaranteed the loan. City National Bank (Plaintiff) acquired the loan after Imperial dissolved. When Main and West defaulted on the note, Plaintiff filed suit seeking full payment of the obligations of Defendants - Main and West and the guarantors. The trial justice granted summary judgment for Plaintiff. Defendants appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in granting summary judgment because he considered an exhibit that was viewed in camera without having afforded defense counsel an opportunity to review it. The Supreme Court vacated the summary judgment and remanded, holding that the trial justice inappropriately reviewed and relied on a document not shown to defense counsel in granting summary judgment. View "City Nat’l Bank v. Main & West, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff executed a promissory note that was secured by a mortgage on her real estate. The mortgage deed named Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as the mortgagee. The note was transferred to USA Residential Properties, LLC, and Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC became the servicer for the loan. MERS then assigned its interest in the mortgage to ACT Properties, LLC, which assigned its interest in the mortgage to USA Residential. When Rushmore initiated foreclosure proceedings, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the assignment from MERS to ACT Properties was invalid because the signer was unauthorized. When Plaintiff filed a notice to depose a MERS designee as to the authority of the official who executed the assignment from MERS to ACT Properties, MERS moved for a protective order seeking to restrict discovery, arguing that Plaintiff had no standing to challenge the validity of the assignment. The hearing justice denied the motion. The Supreme Court quashed the hearing justice’s decision, holding that because Plaintiff merely alleged that the assignment was voidable, as opposed to void, and because she was not a party to the assignment, she lacked standing to challenge it and was not entitled to engage in discovery pertaining to the authority issue. View "Cruz v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

In order to finance her purchase of a home, Plaintiff executed a note payable to New Century Mortgage Corporation. The note was secured by a mortgage on the property naming Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as mortgagee. New Century, the lender, subsequently filed for bankruptcy and filed a notice of rejection of executory contract regarding its membership agreement with MERS and its status as a MERS member. MERS then assigned the mortgage to UBS Real Estate Securities, and UBS assigned the mortgage to USA Residential Properties. Thereafter, USA Residential and its loan servicer, Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, commenced foreclosure proceedings against Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed this complaint against MERS, UBS, USA Residential, and Rushmore, declaring that the mortgage assignments were void and the foreclosure sale was invalid. The superior court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim, concluding that Plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the assignments of the mortgage and, alternatively, that the assignments were valid and the foreclosure proper. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding that Plaintiff had standing to challenge the assignment of the mortgage on her home and adequately stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. View "DiLibero v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., Inc." on Justia Law

Exactly three years after borrowing money to refinance their home mortgage, the Jesinoskis sent the lender a letter purporting to rescind the transaction. The lender replied, refusing to acknowledge the rescission’s validity. One year and one day later, the Jesinoskis filed suit, seeking a declaration of rescission and damages. The district court entered judgment on the pleadings, concluding that a borrower can exercise the Truth in Lending Act’s right to rescind, 15 U. S. C.1635(a), (f), only by filing a lawsuit within three years of the date the loan was consummated. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The unanimous Supreme Court reversed. A borrower exercising his right to rescind under the Act need only provide written notice to his lender within the 3-year period, not file suit within that period. Section 1635(a)’s language: a borrower “shall have the right to rescind . . . by notifying the creditor . . . of his intention to do so,” indicates that rescission is effected when the borrower notifies the creditor of his intention. The statute says nothing about how that right is exercised and does not state that rescission is necessarily a consequence of judicial action. View "Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc." on Justia Law