Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was whether New Hampshire law requires a foreclosing entity to hold both mortgage and note before it can exercise a power of sale under N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 479:25, which authorizes a mortgagee to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure where, as in this case, the mortgage document contains a clause allowing them. Plaintiff executed a promissory note and a mortgage. The note and mortgage document and the note were subsequently assigned to different entities. After Plaintiff failed to make mortgage payments, Defendant, the mortgagee, moved to foreclose. Defendant removed the case from New Hampshire state court to federal court. The district court allowed Defendant’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the parties’ intent to separate the mortgage and note at the beginning of the transaction trumped any common law rule requiring unity, and thus, Defendant could proceed with the foreclosure under section 479:25. Plaintiff appealed. Because controlling state precedent did not provide definitive guidance on how to resolve the questions of whether the common law or state statute mandates the unity of a mortgage and note, and if so, whether parties can override that rule by agreement, the First Circuit certified the questions to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. View "Castagnaro v. Bank of New York Mellon" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against a Georgia post-judgment garnishment statute. Plaintiff obtained funds from a workers' compensation settlement after suffering a permanent disability on the job. Plaintiff also received Social Security disability payments. One of plaintiff's creditors issued a garnishment summons that resulted in the freezing of plaintiff's worker's compensation funds for four months before plaintiff's creditor finally conceded that plaintiff's funds were exempt from garnishment and agreed to the dissolution of the hold on his funds. The court concluded that plaintiff had Article III standing and that his claim is not moot. The court declined to pass on the constitutionality of Georgia's post-judgment garnishment statute before ensuring that all interested parties have had notice and a chance to present all evidence and argument, and the district court has had an opportunity to examine and consider that evidence and argument on the merits. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's sua sponte dismissal of plaintiff's suit for lack of standing and remanded, because it was substantially likely that plaintiff and his wife's exempt funds will soon be the subject of a garnishment summons again. View "Strickland v. Alexander, et al." on Justia Law

With the threat of foreclosure looming on his home, Plaintiff sued Bank for failing to consider him for a mortgage loan modification, which a California class action settlement agreement required Bank to do before attempting to foreclose on Plaintiff’s home. The complaint alleged breach of contract, violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, 35A and 35B, violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. The First Circuit vacated in part and remanded Plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, holding (1) Plaintiff’s statutory causes of action fell short of stating a cognizable claim; but (2) the district court improperly converted Bank’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s contract-based claims into a motion for summary judgment, warranting a remand of those claims. View "Foley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Regions Bank appealed a trial court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration in its dispute with Jerry Neighbors. Neighbors obtained a home loan from Regions in 1999. As part of the loan application, Neighbors executed a dispute-resolution agreement (DRA). In 2008, Neighbors modified the loan. Neighbors denied he signed the loan-modification agreement; he claimed that his signature on that document was forged. The loan-modification agreement also contained an arbitration provision. In 2013, Neighbors sued Regions, alleging that Regions had negligently and wantonly allowed an imposter to forge Neighbors's signature on the loan-modification agreement. Relying on the DRA, Regions moved to compel the arbitration of Neighbors's claims. Neighbors opposed the motion to compel, arguing that because the dispute in this case involved an alleged forgery, the dispute could not be subject to the provisions of the DRA. Neighbors also suggested that the DRA did not cover his claims because, pursuant to the terms of the judgment divorcing him and his wife, he stopped making payments on the original mortgage in 2006 when his ex-wife remarried. Although Neighbors characterized the dispute otherwise, the Supreme Court concluded that the dispute in this case concerned the scope of the DRA. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Regions Bank v. Neighbors" on Justia Law

In this appeal, the district court held that the "separate entity rule" precludes a court from ordering a garnishee bank with branches in New York to restrain assets of judgment debtors held in foreign branches of the bank. The court certified the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: "whether the separate entity rule precludes a judgment creditor from ordering a garnishee bank operating branches in New York to restrain a debtor's assets held in foreign branches of the bank." The Court of Appeals answered the question in the affirmative. Consequently, the court held that the district court correctly concluded that the separate entity rule precludes the restraint of assets held in Standard Chartered Bank's foreign branches. Therefore, the court remanded to the district court with instructions to vacate the restraining order on defendants' assets. View "Motorola Credit Corp. v. Standard Chartered Bank" on Justia Law

Dragon Systems, Inc. (Dragon), a voice recognition software company that faced a deteriorating financial situation, hired Goldman Sachs (Goldman) to provide financial advice and assistance in connection with a possible merger. In 2000, Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. (Lernout & Hauspie) acquired Dragon. When it was discovered that Lernout & Hauspie had fraudulently overstated its earnings, the merged company filed for bankruptcy, and the Dragon name and technology were sold from the estate. Plaintiffs, two groups of Dragon shareholders, filed suit against Goldman, alleging negligent and intentional misrepresentation, negligence, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A. A jury found in favor of Goldman on Plaintiffs’ common law claims, and district court found that Goldman had not violated chapter 93A. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly articulated the legal standard applicable to Plaintiffs’ chapter 93A claims and correctly applied that standard to its factual findings; and (2) Plaintiffs’ arguments that they were entitled to a new trial on their common law claims because of evidentiary errors and erroneous jury instructions were without merit. View "Baker v. Goldman, Sachs & Co." on Justia Law

In 2012, St. Louis County adopted an ordinance that implemented a foreclosure mediation program requiring lenders to provide residential borrowers an opportunity to mediate prior to foreclosure. Two bankers filed suit against the County seeking a declaratory judgment establishing that the ordinance was invalid. The circuit court sustained the County’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the County possessed the charter authority to enact the ordinance, the ordinance was a valid exercise of the County’s police power, the ordinance was not preempted by state law, and the fees associated with the ordinance did not violate the Hancock Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the ordinance was void and unenforceable ab initio because the County exceeded its charter authority in enacting the ordinance. View "Mo. Bankers Ass’n, Inc. v. St. Louis County, Mo." on Justia Law

Property Owners filed a lawsuit against a Mortgage Company, claiming that, by preparing deeds of trust and promissory notes for the Property Owners, the Mortgage Company (1) violated Mo. Rev. Stat. 484.010.2 and 484.020 by engaging in the "law business"; (2) committed an unlawful practice in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act; and (3) was unjustly enriched because it charged for services it did not perform or did not perform lawfully. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Mortgage Company. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the Property Owners did not dispute that the Mortgage Company did not charge a separate fee or vary its customary charges for preparation of legal documents, there were no disputed material facts, entitling the Mortgage Company to summary judgment as a matter of law. View "Binkley v. Am. Equity Mortgage, Inc." on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a judgment entered after a demurrer by three banks to plaintiff’s second amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend. The three banks were US Metro Bank, Wilshire State Bank, and Pacific City Bank. An employee of a corporation with responsibility to gather incoming checks made payable to the corporation and deposit those checks into the corporation’s bank account (in this case, the corporation’s accounting manager) stole some of the incoming checks and took them to a check cashing service where she forged the signature of one of the officers of the corporation and received hard cash in return. After discovery of the thefts, the corporation fired the accounting manager and tried to recoup at least some of its losses. In this case, the corporation’s recoupment effort included suing its own bank, the three check cashing services where the employee took the checks, and the three banks which received those checks from the check cashing services for deposit into those companies’ own accounts. The legal issue presented in this appeal was one of first impression in California: Does the interposition of the check cashing services between (a) the employee who stole the checks and (b) the three banks who took the checks from three check cashing companies and credited the accounts of those check cashing companies, relieve the banks of all duty of care under section 3405 of California’s Commercial Code? The Court of Appeal concluded the answer was no: the three banks were the first banks to process the checks through the banking system, and, as “first banks,” they had a duty of care in the processing of those checks “‘to make certain all endorsements [were] valid; banks subsequently taking the paper have a right to rely on the forwarding bank.’” Check cashing companies are not banks, and should not be treated as banks for purposes of California’s Uniform Commercial Code. View "HH Computer Systems v. Pacific City Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a class action alleging that the Bank violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. 1963 et seq., by failing to post an external notice of fees on its ATMs. While the suit was pending but before class certification, Congress amended the EFTA to eliminate the external notice requirement. The district court dismissed plaintiff's claim and denied class certification. The court concluded that plaintiff has standing to bring her claim where Congress's determination that consumers were entitled to the fee information they need to decline a transaction before investing the time needed to initiate it protects a substantive, if small, right, and its deprivation is an injury-in-fact that allows plaintiff to pursue her claim; the Bank's attempt to "pick off" plaintiff's claim before the court could decide the issue of class certification fits squarely within the "relation back" doctrine, which saves her claim from mootness at this stage; the EFTA amendment eliminating the "two notice" provision does not apply retroactively to plaintiff's claim; and the EFTA amendment poses no more a barrier for putative class members than it does for plaintiff, for claims alleging violations before the amendment was enacted. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's denial of class certification and remanded for further considerations. View "Mabary v. Home Town Bank, N.A." on Justia Law