Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

This case arose from a business venture that was established by plaintiff Brendan Allen and defendant Asnel Diaz Sanchez. The venture was operated through plaintiff ADS Associates, Inc. (ADS), a corporation fully owned by Sanchez. Allen and Sanchez opened a business checking account in the name of ADS at a branch of Oritani Savings Bank where ADS had preexisting accounts. By agreement between ADS and Oritani, the new ADS account required the signatures of both Allen and Sanchez to appear on each check drawn on the account. Despite that limitation, Sanchez linked the new ADS account to other ADS accounts within his control and, through a series of internet transactions, transferred a substantial sum of money from the ADS account he had established with Allen to his other ADS accounts. After learning of these transfers, Allen sued Oritani and Sanchez. Although it dismissed Allen’s claims, the trial court permitted Allen to assert claims on ADS’s behalf against Oritani, notwithstanding Sanchez’s issuance of a resolution denying Allen the authority to maintain an action on ADS’s behalf. A jury returned a verdict in favor of ADS. The trial court, however, entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Oritani premised on an indemnification provision in the agreement governing ADS’s account with Oritani. An Appellate Division panel reversed the trial court’s determination. It found that the ADS resolution signed by Sanchez deprived Allen of authority to assert a claim on behalf of ADS. The panel held, however, that Allen could assert a common law negligence claim against Oritani despite the fact that he was not Oritani’s banking customer. It concluded that Allen had a “special relationship” with Oritani, and that Oritani had a duty to advise Allen of its internet banking policies when he and Sanchez opened the ADS account. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that Article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) governed the wire transfers at the center of this case, and that Allen could not assert a claim under Article 4A against Oritani because he did not meet the statutory definition of a bank “customer.” Furthermore, the Court held that Allen could not assert a negligence claim based upon an alleged special relationship with Oritani. Accordingly, the Appellate Division was reversed and the trial court's judgment was reinstated. View "ADS Associates Group, Inc. v. Oritani Savings Bank" on Justia Law

First United Security Bank and its wholly owned subsidiary, Paty Holdings, LLC (collectively, "the bank"), brought suit to recover excess funds received by Tuscaloosa County from the tax sale of real estate owned by Wayne Allen Russell, Jr., and on which First United had a mortgage. The bank foreclosed on its mortgage after the tax sale but before the demand for excess proceeds was made. The issue presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether a purchaser at a foreclosure sale is an "owner" entitled under 40-10-28, Ala. Code 1975, to receive the excess proceeds from a tax sale of the real property foreclosed upon. After review, the Supreme Court concluded that the bank was entitled to the excess tax-sale proceeds. The Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "First United Security Bank v. McCollum" on Justia Law

Debtors contracted with Builder to finish construction on a house. After Debtors defaulted on progress payments, Builder sued Debtors and Bank, claiming that Defendants falsely represented or concealed material information about whether Debtors could pay for the work. The district court sustained Defendants’ motions for summary judgment on Builder’s fraud and conspiracy claims. Debtors then confessed judgment on Builder’s breach of contract claim. After a bench trial, the district court ruled for Defendants on Builder’s equitable and promissory estoppel claims. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the court erred in granting summary judgment to Debtors on Builder’s fraud claim and to Debtors and Bank on Builder’s civil conspiracy claim; and (2) during trial, the court did not err in finding that Builder had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Bank promised to fund Builder’s work that was definite enough to induce Builder’s foreseeable reliance on the statement, but these factual findings did not preclude Builder’s proof of the same facts for its fraud claims. Remanded. View "deNourie & Youst Homes, LLC v. Frost" on Justia Law

Frederick Skoda appealed the grant of summary judgment foreclosing the mortgage held by JPMorgan Chase Bank. The mortgage included provisions for the payment of principal and interest as well as the payment in escrow for property taxes. Skoda made payments of $542.89 for the principal and interest on the mortgage but did not include the escrow payment for property taxes, an additional $168.11 per month. Skoda did not make escrow payments because he paid his property taxes on his own. In 2011, JPMorgan Chase Bank refused to accept Skoda's payments for $542.89. Skoda contends JPMorgan Chase Bank had no right to collect escrow for property taxes because the previous mortgage holder, Homeside Lending, Inc., waived the right to collect escrow for property taxes. Skoda also argues JPMorgan Chase Bank violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to Skoda, he sent full principal and interest payments, but JPMorgan Chase Bank reported him as having a delinquent payment history on his credit report regardless of the fact that JPMorgan Chase Bank decided to stop accepting the payments. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding the district court did not err in determining that no genuine issues of material fact existed and JPMorgan Chase Bank was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. View "JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Skoda" on Justia Law

Appellant entered into a mortgage with Aegis Lending Corporation. The mortgage was later assigned to Pacifica L. Ninteen, and the servicing rights were eventually transferred to Vantium Capital, Inc. (“Acqura”). After foreclosure proceedings were commenced against Appellant, Appellant filed suit against Acqura, alleging numerous state law claims. Specifically, Appellant claimed that Acqura’s violated its Servicer Participation Agreement with Fannie Mae by failing to follow guidelines applicable under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program. The district court dismissed the lawsuit, holding that Minn. Stat. 58.18(1) did not provide a private cause of action for Appellant to pursue damages for Acqura’s alleged violation of its agreement with Fannie Mae and that Appellant therefore lacked standing. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that section 58.18(1) provides for a private right of action and therefore gave Appellant standing to pursue her claim.View "Gretsch v. Vantium Capital, Inc." on Justia Law

The Fleets applied to have their Bank of America (BofA) home loan modified in 2009 under the Making Homes Affordable Act. The result of multiple telephone calls and letters to various BofA-related personnel, the Fleets were either (a) assured the Fleets that everything was proceeding smoothly or (b) told BofA had no knowledge of any loan modification application. Finally, in November 2011, BofA informed the Fleets they had been approved for a trial period plan under a Fannie Mae modification program. All they had to do, was to make three monthly payments starting on December 1, 2011. If they made the payments, then they would move to the next step (verification of financial hardship); if they passed that test, their loan would be permanently modified. The Fleets made the first two payments, for December 2011 and January 2012, which BofA acknowledged receiving, and therefore foreclosure proceedings had been suspended. Toward the end of January 2012, their house was sold at a trustee’s sale. Two days after the sale, a representative of the buyer showed up at the house with a notice to quit. The Fleets informed him that the house had significant structural problems, and he said he was going to rescind the sale. The Fleets continued to try to communicate with BofA regarding the property. A BofA representative left voice mail messages to the effect that BofA wanted to discuss a solution to the dispute, but otherwise it appeared that productive conversation between the Fleets and BofA and between the Fleets and the buyer had ceased. In light of this silence (which they interpreted to mean the buyer was trying to rescind the sale), the Fleets spent $15,000 to repair a broken sewer main, which was leaking sewage onto the front lawn. They were evicted in August 2012. In June 2012, the Fleets sued BofA, the trustee under their deed of trust, BofA officers and some of the employees who had been involved in handling their loan modification, and the buyer of the property and its representative. BofA’s demurrer to the first amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend as to the remaining causes of action promissory estoppel, breach of contract, fraud, and accounting. All of the BofA defendants were dismissed. The Court of Appeal reversed: "Although the Fleets’ amended complaint spreads the fraud allegations over three causes of action and contains a great deal of extraneous information, it also alleges the requisite elements of promissory fraud. [. . .] This cause of action may or may not be provable; what it definitely is not is demurrable." The Court sustained the demurrer to the Fleets' action for promissory estoppel, and affirmed the trial court in all other respects. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Fleet v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, victims of terrorist attacks in Israel by Hamas, filed suit against NatWest, claiming that NatWest provided material support and resources to a terrorist organization in violation of the Antiterrorism Act (ATA), 18 U.S.C. 2331(1)(A), 2333(a), and 2339B(a)(1), and collected and provided funds for the financing of terrorism in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2331(1)(A), 2333(a), and 2339C. Plaintiffs alleged that NatWest provided material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organization by maintaining bank accounts and transferring funds for Interpal. The district court granted NatWest's motion for summary judgment. The court vacated and remanded, concluding that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether NatWest possessed the requisite scienter. The statute's requirement is less exacting, and requires only a showing that NatWest had knowledge that, or exhibited deliberate indifference to whether, Interpal provided material support to a terrorist organization, irrespective of whether Interpal's support aided terrorist activities of the terrorist organization. Because Hamas is an organization designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), plaintiffs can fulfill their burden by demonstrating either that NatWest had actual knowledge that Interpal provided material support to Hamas, or that NatWest exhibited deliberate indifference to whether Interpal provided material support. View "Weiss v. Nat'l Westminster Bank" on Justia Law

In 2005, appellants Max and Peggy Espeland refinanced their home with E-Loan, Inc. Shortly thereafter, their loan was purchased by another bank and securitized. The Espelands eventually defaulted on the loan and their home was sold in a non-judicial deed of trust foreclosure. The Espelands brought an action in the superior court to void the sale, arguing mainly that inconsistencies in and multiple transfers of the loan and security documents caused defects in the chain of title. The superior court disagreed and granted summary judgment against the Espelands. The Espelands appealed. Thereafter, the Espelands moved for relief from judgment, citing fraud by the defendants. The superior court denied this motion. The Espelands filed a second appeal, and the Supreme Court consolidated the two appeals for decision. Because the Espelands did not produce any evidence of defects with the chain of title or with the foreclosure, the Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s grant of summary judgment. Because after reviewing the record the Court saw no evidence of fraud or malfeasance, it affirmed the superior court’s denial of the motion for relief from judgment.View "Espeland v. OneWest Bank, FSB" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, manufacturers of well-known luxury items, filed suit claiming that defendants were selling counterfeit versions of plaintiffs' products on the Internet. In the instant appeal, Bank of China, a nonparty appellant, challenged an August 2011 order granting plaintiffs' motion to compel the Bank to comply with a document subpoena and an asset freeze injunction and denying the Bank's cross-motion to modify the court's orders; a May 2012 order denying the Bank's motion to reconsider; and a November 2012 order holding the Bank in civil contempt and imposing monetary penalties. The court concluded that the Bank's claim that the district court was without authority to issue orders restraining defendants' assets pending adjudication was without merit; the court vacated the August 2011 and May 2012 orders so that the district court may consider on remand whether it may exercise specific personal jurisdiction over the Bank to compel compliance with its orders and if so whether it should exercise such jurisdiction, properly applying principles of comity; and the court reversed the November 2012 order holding the Bank in civil contempt and imposing civil monetary penalties. View "Gucci v. Bank of China" on Justia Law

In 2011, IndyMac Bank foreclosed on a certain property. JAS, Inc. purchased the property and subsequently initiated a quiet title action. Defendants Countrywide Home Loans and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) defaulted. Bank of America (BOA), which had acquired Countrywide in 2008, was not named as a party defendant and did not appear in the proceeding. Final judgment was issued quieting title to the property in JAS’s name. Countrywide and MERS subsequently moved to have the entries of default entered against them set aside, and BOA filed a motion to intervene in the proceeding and sought to have the default entered against Countrywide set aside. The district court granted the motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in granting BOA’s motions to intervene and to set aside the default judgment entered against Countywide, as BOA met the express requirements of Mont. R. Civ. P. 24(a), and Countrywide had no present interest in the subject property at the time suit was filed; and (2) did not manifestly abuse its discretion by granting MERS’s motion to set aside the default judgment entered against it, as MERS established good cause to set aside the default judgment.View "JAS, Inc. v. Eisele" on Justia Law