Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

In 2002, Lehman Brothers International Europe (LBIE) created the "Dante Programme" by which certain special purpose entities issued notes of collateralized debt obligations (the Notes). The Notes were purchased by appellants as well as other investors. The same special purpose entities entered into a swap agreement with Lehman Brothers Special Financing Incorporated (LBSF) whereby LBSF agreed to pay amounts due under the Notes in exchange for certain interests in the collateral that secured the Notes. Appellants and LBSF had competing interests in the Collateral. LBSF subsequently commenced an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court against the trustees of the Dante Programme and the issuers of the Notes, seeking declaratory relief with respect to priority in the Collateral. The court held that in the circumstances here, the bankruptcy court's denial of appellants' motions to intervene in the adversary proceeding was a final appealable order. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded. View "In re: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc." 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

Debtors appealed from the ruling of the bankruptcy court granting summary judgment to SunTrust and denying summary judgment to debtors, on debtors' adversary complaint that challenged SunTrust's standing to enforce a promissory note and deed of trust on debtors' property, and sought to remove the deed of trust from the chain of title to such property. The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment and held that the promissory note was a negotiable instrument and that SunTrust was entitled to enforce it and the deed of trust. The bankruptcy court properly used evidence from the affidavit of SunTrust's representative and properly applied judicial estoppel. View "Knigge, et al v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc." on Justia Law

In this appeal, which arose out of Nevada's Foreclosure Mediation Program (FMP), the Supreme Court examined the note-holder and beneficial-interest status of a party seeking to foreclose. The Court concluded (1) to participate in the FMP and ultimately obtain an FMP certificate to proceed with the nonjudicial foreclosure of an owner-occupied residence, the party seeking to foreclose must demonstrate that it is both the beneficiary of the deed of trust and the current holder of the promissory note; (2) when the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (MERS) is the named beneficiary of the deed of trust and a different entity holds the promissory note, the note and deed of trust are split, making nonjudicial foreclosure by either improper, but any split is cured when the promissory note and deed of trust are reunified; and (3) because the foreclosing bank in this case became both the holder of the promissory note and the beneficiary of the deed of trust, it had standing to proceed through the FMP. View "Edelstein v. Bank of New York Mellon" on Justia Law

Petitioners were beneficiaries of a testamentary trust who sued the trustee, Respondent PNC Bank. Petitioners alleged that PNC improperly demanded that each beneficiary execute a broad release agreement prior to distribution and misapplied the provisions of the Maryland Code, Tax-General Article in calculating the amount of inheritance tax owed on the trust's assets and the amount of commission to which PNC was entitled as trustee. The circuit court granted summary judgment in PNC's favor, finding no legal impropriety in PNC's distribution plan or its calculation of the tax and commission. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that PNC's actions were in accord with Maryland law. View "Hastings v. PNC Bank, NA" on Justia Law

Boggio and wife, Sarah, resided in Texas. Boggio served military tours, and assigned Sarah power of attorney. They separated; Boggio left the state. Six months later Sarah purchased a car with financing through USAA. Sarah allegedly signed Boggio’s name, unbeknownst to him, on the check issued to the car dealership. The car was later listed on Boggio’s car insurance. The divorce decree confirmed that the car was acquired during the marriage, identified the associated loan as a marital debt, and stated that Sarah alone would be responsible for payment. Later, Boggio, residing in Cincinnati, experienced credit problems due to missed payments. Boggio wrote to consumer reporting agencies and USAA disputing his status as co-obligor. USAA attempted to mail Boggio (but not his counsel) a copy of the allegedly forged check, but the letter was sent to an incorrect Texas address. Because Boggio would not go to Texas to file a police report, USAA declared the dispute a civil matter between the Boggios. In Boggio’s suit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the district court granted summary judgment to USAA. The Sixth Circuit reversed. A reasonable jury could find that USAA’s investigation and notices were unreasonable.View "Boggio v. USAA Fed.l Sav. Bank" on Justia Law

Cleveland sued financial institutions, alleging that by securitizing subprime mortgages and foreclosing on houses, defendants allegedly contributed to declines in property values, shrinking tax base, and increased criminal activity, causing a public nuisance. The district court dismissed, finding preemption by state law and failure to demonstrate that defendants unreasonably interfered with a public right or were the proximate cause of alleged harm. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Cleveland filed another suit in state court against non-diverse institutions, alleging public-nuisance, violation of the Ohio Corrupt Activities Act, (RICO analogue), by inaccurately claiming title to mortgages and notes in foreclosures in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 2923.32. Cleveland also sought to recover (Ohio Revised Code 715.261) costs incurred maintaining or demolishing foreclosed houses. While the case was pending, banks sought a declaratory judgment that Cleveland’s public-nuisance claim was preempted by the National Bank Act and an injunction against the suits. The district court suggested that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed. Subsequently, the state court dismissed Cleveland’s public-nuisance and OCAA claims; appeal is pending. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in the first case, so that declaratory relief is now moot. The Sixth Circuit reversed with respect to the second suit; the district court had jurisdiction.View "Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. City of Cleveland" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking the partition by sale of property owned by her deceased father and distribution of the proceeds to the three cotenants, herself, her sister Claudia, and her brother Benjamin. Claudia filed a counterclaim and cross-claim against Plaintiff, Benjamin, Benjamin's wife, Homeowners Loan Corporation (HLC), and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) for, among other things, a declaratory judgment that she had a life estate in the property. The Court of Chancery found in favor of Plaintiff and her request for a partition of the property. Claudia was then evicted from the property by a trustee appointed by the court to oversee the sale of the property. Thereafter, Plaintiff sought reimbursement for several expenses. HLC and MERS sought attorneys' fees and rent payments. The Court of Chancery awarded a total of $12,098 to Plaintiff for attorneys' fees, rent payments, funeral expenses, and trustee's fees. The Court also awarded $2,166 in rent payments to HLC and MERS and requested an itemized list of fees incurred as a result of Claudia's behavior that was found to be vexatious or in bad faith. View "Brown v. Wiltbank" on Justia Law

James Turner and Julie Viers opened a line of credit with Wells Fargo Bank and granted Wells Fargo a deed of trust on property they owned as security for the line of credit. Later, John Turner, Christina Turner, and Sandy Couch (the John Turners) purchased the property. Julie and James paid off the entire outstanding balance under the credit line agreement using the proceeds from the sale of the property to the John Turners, but Julie subsequently borrowed $169,090 under the credit line agreement secured by the property. Thereafter, Wells Fargo refused to release the deed of trust. The John Turners then filed a complaint to quiet title to the property. The district court granted Wells Fargo's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the John Turners could not enforce the terms of the credit line agreement because they were not intended beneficiaries of the agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly concluded (1) the John Turners were not entitled to judgment requiring Wells Fargo to release the deed of trust the bank held on the property; and (2) the John Turners failed to establish prima facie claims of promissory or equitable estoppel. View "Turner v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs had a Home Depot credit card issued by Citibank. In 2005, Krahenbuhl, who also had a Citibank-Home Depot credit card, contracted with plaintiffs to build a log cabin for speculative resale. A log cabin package was purchased over the phone from Home Depot for $9,761.64 and charged to Krahenbuhl’s account. The materials were approved by, delivered to, and signed for by plaintiffs, who eventually built and sold the log cabin. The relationship between Krahenbuhl and plaintiffs deteriorated, and Krahenbuhl disputed the charge. Citibank transferred the charge from Krahenbuhl’s credit card to plaintiffs’ card. Krahenbuhl and plaintiffs reached a settlement through mediation, which plaintiffs thought included payment of the credit card charge. About one year later, they claim, they became aware that the $9,761.64 charge had been transferred to their account. Neither Citibank nor Home Depot would remove the charge; accrued interest has resulted in a total sum of approximately $21,000. Plaintiffs sued under the Wisconsin Consumer Act, Wis. Stat. 427.104(1)(j). Citibank was dismissed and the district court granted Home Depot summary judgment, finding that Home Depot had not acted either directly or indirectly in an attempt to collect a debt. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "Parent v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc." on Justia Law