Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

In 2002, defendant Richard Hardie borrowed money from Brattleboro Savings & Loan Association in order to purchase a vacation home in Weathersfield. The loan was secured by a mortgage on the property and included a "second home rider" clause, asserting that the property was not a primary residence. Hardie was married to intervenor-appellee Lisa Mangini at the time, but was the sole owner of the property, and Mangini did not sign either the promissory note or the mortgage. Hardie twice refinanced the property without Mangini's participation, both with second home riders. By 2007, Hardie and Mangini's marriage was deteriorating. Mangini left the couple's New Jersey home and moved into the Weathersfield property. In 2008, Mangini filed for divorce in Vermont. In her divorce filing, Mangini claimed that the property had become her primary residence as of May 2007. Also in the divorce filing, Mangini requested "an award of the Weathersfield home and the adjoining land either without any encumbrances, or, in the alternative, that [Hardie] be responsible for paying off and releasing the mortgage[] to [Brattleboro Savings]." While Mangini was occupying the property and the divorce was pending, Hardie refinanced the mortgage on the Weathersfield property. The 2008 refinancing was completed without Mangini's participation, and Hardie again claimed that the property was a second home. In 2011, Brattleboro Savings commenced a foreclosure action on the property, naming only Hardie as a defendant. Despite not being named in the foreclosure case, Mangini filed an answer asserting an affirmative defense that she had established a homestead interest in the property prior to the 2008 mortgage, and that therefore the 2008 mortgage was "inoperative to convey" her homestead interest. Brattleboro Savings filed two motions for summary judgment, one requesting a foreclosure judgment against Hardie and the second seeking judgment against Mangini on her homestead claim. Mangini filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, detailing for the first time her claim that she had acquired an equitable interest in the property by her divorce filing. Brattleboro Savings appealed a superior court's decision denying its motions for summary judgment and granting Mangini's cross-motion for summary judgment, finding that Mangini held title to the Weathersfield property free and clear of a mortgage to plaintiff. The superior court ruled that the mortgage was inoperative because Hardie, mortgaged the property without the participation of Mangini in violation of 27 V.S.A. section 141(a). Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court reversed the grant of Mangini's motion for summary judgment and the denial of Brattleboro Saving's motions for summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings.View "Brattleboro Savings & Loan Assn. v. Hardie, et al." on Justia Law

This appeal concerns Ex-Im Bank's efforts to execute on a $21 million judgment in its favor against Grenada. Grenada had waived its sovereign immunity from suit in federal court but, nonetheless, Ex-Im Bank has encountered obstacles in attempting to enforce the judgment in the United States under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. 1602-1611. The court concluded that: the question whether the Grynberg Funds may be attached is moot because those funds have already been disbursed; the district court properly vacated the restraining notices against the Restrained Entities because, with one possible exception, the Restrained Funds are not "used for commercial activity in the United States"; and because the record does not provide an adequate basis to determine whether the IATA Funds are used for commercial activity in the United States and whether they belong to Grenada, the court vacated the denial of post-judgment discovery to these funds, and remanded for the district court to reassess whether to permit further discovery. Accordingly, the court dismissed in part, affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. View "Export-Import Bank of the Republic of China v. Grenada" on Justia Law

BancorpSouth Bank filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, judicial foreclosure, and other relief against Van Buren Group, LLC, a corporation that organized the construction of thirty condominiums in Oxford. Four purchasers and two members moved for summary judgment, which the chancellor granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment as to the four purchasers; however, it reversed and remanded as to the two members. The Supreme Court granted BancorpSouth’s subsequent petition for writ of certiorari. After review of the matter, the Supreme Court held that that an issue of material fact existed with respect to the purchasers. Therefore, the Court reversed the chancery court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "BancorpSouth Bank v. Brantley, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s property was subject to a mortgage. Plaintiff discussed refinancing with a predecessor in interest to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as a mortgage broker and his firm, whom Plaintiff referred to as “agents” of Wells Fargo. Based on these discussions, Plaintiff began making improvements to increase the property’s appraised value. Ultimately, Plaintiff was unable to refinance her mortgage. Plaintiff brought suit against Wells Fargo, alleging, among other claims, a violation of N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 397-A:2(VI) (count one) and promissory estoppel (count five). The district court dismissed counts one and five of Plaintiff’s complaint, concluding both claims were inadequately pleaded. Plaintiff appealed, arguing, among other things, that although she could not claim a private right of action under section 397-A:2(VI), she did state a claim for common law fraud. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court properly dismissed any state law fraud claim that Plaintiff belatedly attempted to advance and correctly dismissed Plaintiff’s promissory estoppel claim. View "Ruivo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

First Citizens BancShares, Inc. (FC North), a bank holding company incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina, adopted by forum selection bylaw (the “Forum Selection Bylaw”) the same day it announced it had entered into a merger agreement to acquire First Citizens Bancorporation, Inc. The Forum Selection Bylaw selected as the forum the federal or state courts of North Carolina instead of the state or federal courts of Delaware. The City of Providence filed complaints challenging as invalid the Forum Selection Bylaw and asserting various claims against the FC North board of directors concerning the proposed merger. The Court of Chancery granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss both complaints for failure to state a claim, holding (1) the Forum Selection Bylaw is facially valid; and (2) it is not unreasonable, unjust, or inequitable to enforce the Forum Selection Bylaw in this case. View "City of Providence v. First Citizens Bancshares, Inc." on Justia Law

The Bank filed suit against the Hanna Parties for breach of contract after the Hanna Parties failed to pay the balance due on a loan when it matured. The Hanna Parties counterclaimed, alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, deceptive trade practices, and breach of contract by the Bank, and demanding reformation or rescission. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Bank as to the counterclaims. A jury concluded that the Hanna Parties did not breach the contract and the district court denied the Bank's post-verdict motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. Both parties appealed. The court concluded that the case was properly submitted to a jury, and the Bank is precluded from seeking a judgment as a matter of law, but that the jury's verdict was against the great weight of the evidence, so the court reversed and remanded for a new trial on the Bank's breach-of-contract claims. The court agreed with the district court that the Hanna Parties' counterclaims failed as a matter of law and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the Bank as to those claims. View "Bank of America v. JB Hanna, et al." on Justia Law

First National Bank of Clarksdale (FNB) secured a loan of more than $800,000 with a deed of trust on real property in Oxford with the understanding that the bank would become the primary lien holder on the realty. FNB acquired title insurance from Mississippi Valley Title Insurance Company against the risk of an undiscovered superior lien holder. No formal title search on the property was performed, although Mississippi Valley’s agent did discover the existence of another deed of trust on the property held by Community Trust Bank (CTB). The agent never relayed this information to FNB or to Mississippi Valley and issued the policy without regard to this prior recorded lien. Years later, CTB’s loan went into default and CTB initiated foreclosure proceedings, which alerted FNB to the existence of CTB’s deed of trust on the property. FNB brought suit in Chancery Court to be subrogated to the primary lien holder position on the property in the amount that it had paid to satisfy the original primary deed of trust. After a bench trial, the chancellor found that the doctrine of equitable subrogation applied and granted primary status to FNB. CTB appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed: based upon the facts presented, subrogation was not equitable. View "Community Trust Bank of Mississippi v. First National Bank of Clarksdale" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether Ohio Rev. Code 5721.25 permits a mortgage holder to redeem the mortgaged property when it is the subject of a tax foreclosure proceeding. Here, Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc. (Vanderbilt) was the holder of both a promissory note and mortgage on certain property. Due to the mortgagors’ failure to pay taxes on the property, the county treasurer initiated a tax foreclosure proceeding for delinquent taxes. The question before the trial court was whether Vanderbilt had the right to redeem. The trial court concluded that Vanderbilt was a “person entitled to redeem” under section 5721.25, granted Vanderbilt’s motion to stay the confirmation of sale and to vacate and set aside the sheriff’s sale. The court of appeals reversed, determining that Vanderbilt was not entitled to redeem the property. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding (1) “any person entitled to redeem the land” under section 5721.25 includes “any owner or lienholder of, or other person with an interest in” the property as set forth in section 5721.181; and (2) therefore, Vanderbilt, as a lienholder, was entitled to redeem the land. Remanded. View "In re Foreclosure of Liens for Delinquent Land Taxes v. Parcels of Land Encumbered with Delinquent Tax Liens" on Justia Law

On April 12, 2010, U.S. Bank National Association initiated a summary process action against Defendant, seeking to evict him from property he owned following the property’s sale to the Bank at a foreclosure auction. On May 25, 2012, a judge entered judgment in favor of the Bank for possession. Defendant appealed, arguing that the foreclosure sale was void because the notice of his right to cure a default did not satisfy the provisions of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, 35A, which gives a mortgagor of residential real property a ninety-day right to cure a payment of default before foreclosure proceedings may be commenced. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) section 35A is not one of the statutes relating to the foreclosure of mortgages by the exercise of a power of sale, and (2) that being the case, and given the deficiencies in the steps Defendant took to obtain relief, Defendant was precluded from challenging the Bank’s compliance with section 35A in this summary process action.View "U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Schumacher" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to engage in prohibited monetary transactions in property for his part in the purchase of two parcels of real property with fraudulently obtained loans. The district court ordered Defendant to pay $615,935 in restitution to JP Morgan Chase, a loan purchaser, and $329,767 in restitution to CitiGroup, a loan originator. Defendant appealed the restitution order. The Ninth Circuit (1) affirmed the district court’s determination that the requirements of the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act were met in this case; (2) affirmed the calculation of restitution owed to CitiGroup; and (3) vacated and remanded for the district court to recalculate the amount owed to Chase because the court applied a formula for a loan originator, although Chase had purchased the loans. View "United States v. Luis" on Justia Law