Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

The claims in these consolidated cases were largely identical in that they shared similar allegations of violations of the Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan Law (SMLL), the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (CPA), and common law breach of contract. Appellees in these cases were mortgage companies, who were assignees of the original lenders, and Appellants were individual borrowers. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissals of each of the cases by the circuit courts, holding (1) the SMLL does not restrict a lender to a single loan origination fee, as long as the aggregate fees charged and collected do not exceed the statutory maximum; (2) Appellees were not required by the SMLL to provide borrowers, who did not intend to use the proceeds of their secondary mortgage loans for commercial purposes, a disclosure form designed expressly to advise commercial borrowers only under the SMLL; and (3) certain Appellants failed to support sufficiently their allegations of breach of contract, CPA violations, and claims in accounting with specific facts.

Azhar Said on behalf of Plaintiff-Appellant Abbasid, Inc. sued the Los Alamos National Bank and First National Bank of Santa Fe for negligence in paying and accepting checks intended for the business but that his now ex-wife Bina Shahani had deposited in her cousin's account for personal use. The case was removed from Texas state to federal court, then removed to the U.S. District Court for the district of New Mexico. The district court dismissed the negligence claim on the grounds that the Bank owed no duty of care to Abbasid and that the claim and was preempted by statute which imposed strict liability. After trial, the jury returned a special verdict that the Bank did not convert any of Abbasid's checks. Abbasid timely filed a motion for a new trial which was denied. Among the issues Abbasid raised on appeal: (1) the district court improperly denied its motion for new trial claiming that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; and (2) the court improperly excluded evidence of the Bank’s check-handling policies. Finding that most of Abbasid's claims of error were not properly preserved or that any error was mooted by the verdict, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in the case.

The United States appealed from a judgment of the district court invalidating two notices of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustments issued by the IRS. The district court so ruled because it concluded that the taxpayer's characterization of two tax-exempt Dutch banks as its partners in Castle Harbour LLC was proper under Internal Revenue Code 704(e)(1). The district court also concluded that, even if the banks did not qualify as partners under section 704(e)(1), the government was not entitled to impose a penalty pursuant to Internal Revenue Code 6662. The court held that the evidence compelled the conclusion that the banks did not qualify as partners under section 704(e)(1), and that the government was entitled to impose a penalty on the taxpayer for substantial understatement of income. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was reversed.

This case concerned a Railcar Contract with TriMet that required Colorado Railcar to secure a $3 million standby letter of credit, which Colorado Railcar arranged through Collateral II, a bankruptcy remote entity. TrimMet certified Collateral II's default and drew on the Letter of Credit when Colorado Railcar defaulted. At issue was whether Collateral II was a surety to Colorado Railcar, entitled to the defense of discharge. The court held that it was not. Because the standby letter of credit issued by KeyBank required TriMet to certify Collateral II's default, TriMet sought clarification that should Colorado Railcar default, TriMet's authority to certify Collateral II's default would be triggered. In response to TriMet's concern, Collateral II agreed to become a part of the Railcar Contract via Modification No. 1, but it undertook no new obligation nor did it subject itself to any additional liability beyond what it previously undertook by securing the Letter of Credit at Colorado Railcar's direction. Thus, no suretyship was created. Because Collateral II was not entitled to the protections of a surety, it was error for the district court to grant summary judgment in its favor.

This appeal was from the grant of summary judgment in a diversity case in which plaintiff was a limited partner in a partnership that received a loan from defendant. The dispute stemmed from a limited guaranty agreement between the Bank and plaintiffs, who became a guarantor of the loan received by the partnership. At issue was whether the guaranty agreement only required payment from the guarantor once the balance of the outstanding loan was $500,000 or less. The district court ruled that the payment was immediately due regardless of whether the balance of the loan had been reduced to $500,000. Because the court found the language of the guaranty agreement ambiguous, the court held that the district court erred by accepting the Bank's interpretation and granting summary judgment. Therefore, the court vacated the summary judgment and remanded to the district court. Further, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion for leave to file a supplemental claim. Finally, the court vacated the order awarding attorney's fees.

Plaintiff-Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust filed a foreclosure action against Defendants-Appellants Natacha and Jevester Bryams, Jr. Deutsche Bank claimed at that time to hold the note and mortgage having received due assignment through mesne assignments of record or conveyance via mortgage servicing transfer. A review of the note showed no indorsement. In its brief in support of motion for summary judgment Deutsche Bank attached a document entitled "Assignment of Mortgage." This assignment of mortgage was acknowledged and stamped as being recorded with the County Clerk of Tulsa County on January 26, 2010--over one month after the filing of the foreclosure proceeding. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank, and the Byrams appealed, arguing that the bank failed to demonstrate it had standing to bring the foreclosure action. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the bank needed to show it became "a person entitled to enforce" its note prior to foreclosing. There was a question of fact as to when and if the bank became so entitled, and the Court concluded summary judgement was not an appropriate disposition of the case. The Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Plaintiff-Appellee Deutsche Bank National Trust filed a foreclosure action against Defendant-Appellant Dennis Brumbaugh. Appellant and his wife Debra executed a note and mortgage with Long Beach Mortgage Company in 2002. In 2006, the Brumbaughs entered into a loan modification agreement with U.S. Bank, N.A., successor trustee to Wachovia Bank, N.A. Several months later, the Brumbaughs divorced, and in 2008, Debra executed a quitclaim deed to Defendant. Defendant defaulted on the note in 2009, and the bank shortly thereafter filed its petition to foreclose. Attached to the petition was a copy of the note, mortgage, loan modification agreement, and copies of statements of judgments and liens by other entities. Appellee claimed it was the present holder of the note and mortgage having received due assignment through assignments of record or conveyance via mortgage servicing transfer. The Appellant answered, denying Appellee owned any interest in the note and mortgage, and the copies attached to the petition were not the same as those he signed. He claimed Appellee lacked capacity to sue and the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter. He also denied being in default and asserted the Appellee/servicing agent caused the alleged default. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed that there were significant questions of fact such that summary judgment was not an appropriate disposition of the case. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the bank and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Court-appointed receiver brought suit against Wells Fargo for conversion and breach of contract with respect to a cashier's check purchased by W Financial Group that Wells Fargo reaccepted for deposit into an account other than that of the named payee, without the proper endorsement. The district court found Wells Fargo liable for conversion. On appeal, Wells Fargo argued that the district court erred in finding that it converted the check and in rejecting certain defenses. The court held that because Wells Fargo made payment on the cashier's check to CA Houston, an entity that was not entitled to enforce the instrument, Wells Fargo was liable for conversion under Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code 3.3420. The court also agreed that Wells Fargo was liable for conversion because it deposited the cashier's check without the necessary indorsement. The court further held that Wells Fargo could not rely upon the condition precedent in its Account Agreement to void liability for conversion of the cashier's check; the district court did not err in denying Wells Fargo's in pari delicto defense; and the court need not address the breach of contract issue. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Plaintiff asserted a right to rescind a mortgage loan on the ground that the disclosures made at closing did not comply with the Massachusetts Consumer Credit Cost Disclosure Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140D, 10, the equivalent of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601. The bankruptcy court dismissed for failure to state a claim, finding that the disclosures complied with the law, and waiver of the right to rescind the transaction. The district court affirmed the judgment for failure to state a claim, but did not reach the issue of waiver. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights in exchange for a reduction in the interest rate. The court also found that the disclosures at issue were not deficient.

Defendant-Appellant International Bancshares Corporation (IBC) appealed the judgment of the district court in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee MCC Management of Naples (Colliers). The Colliers sued for breach of contract and fraud in a dispute over tax benefits. The dispute arose over the parties' disagreement over the entitlement to $16 million in benefits that accrued over a period of years in Local bank. Brothers and investors Miles and Barron Collier owned Local at the time the tax benefits arose. IBC now owns the bank. Local bought troubled loan assets. An agency (now the FDIC) guaranteed the value of the assets. In return, Local had to "share" some of its profits. When Congress repealed the deductions Local claimed on the losses from the assets, Local stopped paying its share from those assets and sued in federal court. The FDIC counterclaimed for non-payment. The Townsend Group had purchased Local Bank from the Colliers while the lawsuit was pending. Townsend required the Colliers promise to indemnify Townsend/Local in the event the FDIC won the lawsuit for more than the potential liability in the suit. Local eventually settled the suit for approximately $25-27 million. Townsend/Local and the Colliers signed a Resolution and Modification Agreement from which the Colliers claimed entitlement to the aforementioned tax benefits. Furthermore, through the "excess basis deduction," Local claimed a deduction on principal payments made to the FDIC and for attorney's fees. In addition to the dispute over the tax benefits, Local's former "tax director" quit over what she believed was the bonus owed to her for discovering the excess basis deduction. She began consulting for the Colliers and notified them of the millions in deductions that Local claimed. IBC counterclaimed against the Colliers, and added third-party claims against the former tax director for breaching confidentiality and tortious interference with contract. The Colliers and tax director prevailed after a jury trial. IBC appealed, arguing it was entitled a judgment as a matter of law. But after review, the Tenth Circuit found no error in the district court's findings at trial.