Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, evicted from their home following a state court foreclosure judgment, sought relief in federal court. The district court rejected all claims. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court correctly considered the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and concluded that the doctrine applied to only two of the 22 claims: those that claimed injury caused by the state-court judgment of foreclosure, as opposed to injury caused by the defendants’ actions in enforcing the judgment. Plaintiffs offered no evidence of discriminatory motive with respect to their race or disabilities and did not allege specific facts establishing that there were material facts in dispute.

This case stemmed from continuing disputes between Argentina and its various private creditors. Argentina and its Brady bondholders entered into a Continuation of Collateral Pledge Agreement that extended the security interest in the tendered bonds' collateral during its transfer and liquidation. Capital Ventures International (CVI) held certain non-Brady bonds on which Argentina also defaulted and chose to sue Argentina to collect on the defaulted bonds it held, seeking to attach Argentina's reversionary interest in the Brady collateral. At issue was whether the attachments blocked the proposed exchange and whether the district court properly modified the attachments to allow the exchange. The court held that CVI was entitled to maintain its attachments even though a quirk of the bonds' Collateral Pledge Agreement meant that the attachments would effectively block the proposed exchange between Argentina and the Brady bondholders. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's orders that modified the attachments to permit the exchange.

Petitioners appealed from a Memorandum and Order and Final Order of Forfeiture entered by the district court dismissing their petition for an ancillary hearing and rejecting their claim as beneficiaries of a putative constructive trust in defendant's forfeiture assets. At issue was whether the remission provision of 21 U.S.C. 853(i) precluded the imposition of a constructive trust in petitioners' favor and whether imposing a constructive trust would be consistent with a forfeiture statutory scheme provided by section 853. Because the court concluded that section 853(i) did not preclude, as a matter of law, recognizing a constructive trust and because a constructive trust was not inconsistent with the forfeiture statute, the court vacated the Final Order of Forfeiture and remanded the case to the district court to consider whether, pursuant to Vermont law, a constructive trust should be recognized in favor of petitioners.

Petitioner appealed a final decision and order of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (Comptroller) requiring him to bear the costs of his own defense in an underlying administrative proceeding in which he prevailed. In the underlying lawsuit, petitioner and his law firm were retained by Hamilton Bank (Bank) to conduct an independent investigation of fraud at the Bank and the Comptroller's Enforcement and Compliance Division subsequently alleged that petitioner had breached his fiduciary duties to the Bank. The court held that the Comptroller was not "substantially justified" in bringing the underlying administrative proceeding against petitioner and therefore, petitioner was entitled to attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. 504. Accordingly, the court remanded for the Comptroller to calculate the amount of those fees.

Defendant is one of several investors (underwriters) in a mortgage bankers blanket bond issued to plaintiff to insure against financial loss resulting from employee misconduct. One of plaintiff's employees engaged in a scheme by which, for a kickback, he caused plaintiff to fund mortgages below its standards. Not knowing the loans were substandard, plaintiff sold them, warranting that they met its standards. Plaintiff was forced to repurchase the loans. The underwriters denied the claim. The district court dismissed a suit, finding that the bond did not cover the loss. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The fidelity bond at issue contains direct-loss causation language. A financial loss resulting from contract liability to third parties is not directly caused by employee misconduct, even if employee misconduct is the source of the contract liability. Plaintiff's loss resulted from its contractual repurchase obligations; the employee misconduct did not directly cause the eventual financial loss. In addition, a specific exclusion in the bond bars coverage for losses resulting from loan-repurchase obligations.

After Beneficial Maine filed a complaint for foreclosure against Timothy and Kathleen Carter in district court, Beneficial moved for summary judgment. To support its motion, Beneficial relied on an affidvait of an employee of a separate business identified as Beneficial's servicer. Beneficial cited to the affidavit as the sole evidentiary support for its allegations of its ownership of the promissory note and mortgage, the Carters' obligation on the note, the Carters' default, and the amount that the Carters owed. The district court entered summary judgment in the bank's favor on its foreclosure complaint. The Carters appealed, challenging the foundation presented by Beneficial to support the admissibility of its mortgage records pursuant to the business records exception to the hearsay rule. The Supreme Court vacated the summary judgment entered in favor of Beneficial, concluding that because the employee did not establish that she was a custodian or other qualified witness who could provide trustworthy and reliable information about the records, the affidavit could not establish the foundation for the records' admissibility. Therefore, the district court could not properly consider those records on summary judgment. Remanded.

This appeal arose from a motion for class certification filed in the trial court by petitioner where petitioner claimed that respondent violated sections 627.840(3)(b) and 627.835, Florida Statutes, by knowingly overcharging him an additional service charge of $20 twice in a twelve month period in two premium finance agreements which he entered into with respondent. At issue was whether the putative class members satisfied the requirements of commonality and predominance needed for class certification under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.220. The court held that the Third District's decision was incorrect because it afforded no deference to the trial court's actual factual findings and conducted a de novo review which constituted error where the proper appellate standard of review for a grant of class certification was abuse of discretion. The court also held that the Third District incorrectly addressed whether petition satisfied section 627.835's "knowingly" requirement and incorrectly held that petitioner and the putative class members failed to satisfy rule 1.220's commonality and predominance requirements. Therefore, the court held that the Third District created conflict with Olen Properties Corp. v. Moss and Smith v. Glen Cove Apartments Condominiums Master Ass'n. Accordingly, the court quashed the Third District's judgment.

Plaintiff obtained a mortgage in 1999 and refinanced four times over six years, each time pulling out more equity. The last refinancing and a mortgage obtained for a new house, (the first house was for sale), were based on documents inaccurately describing plaintiff's income and position. Plaintiff, who claimed to be unaware of the inaccurate information, defaulted on payments. The district court rejected his suit, alleging a violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A (unfair or deceptive practices), unjust enrichment, a violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, and entitlement to rescission of the loan and an injunction ordering the removal of the loan from his credit history. The First Circuit affirmed dismissal of the covenant claim relating to one loan, the negligence claim, and the rescission/equitable relief claim, but vacated dismissal of the other claims. Whether plaintiff or the loan officer deliberately falsified the loan application and whether default was foreseeable are questions of fact suitable for trial.

The Republic of Argentina and interested non-party-appellant, Banco Central de la Republica Argentina (BCRA), appealed from orders of the district court to attach funds held in BCRA's account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) on the theory that, pursuant to First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba (Bancec), those funds were attachable interests of the Republic. At issue was whether sovereign immunity for central bank property "held for its own account" pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. 1611(b)(1), depended upon a presumption of the central bank's independence under Bancec, and the proper definition of central bank property "held for its own account" under section 1611(b)(1). The court held that because BCRA's sovereign immunity over the FRBNY funds had not been waived and the FRBNY funds were property of BCRA held for its own account under section 1611(b)(1), the FRBNY funds were immune from attachment and restraint. Therefore, the court held that the district court erred in concluding that it had subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a suit for attachment and restraint for the FRBNY funds. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings.

These two consolidated appeals arose from actions taken by American National Bank (ANB) to execute on a judgment against Michael Medved, an Arizona resident with business interests in Nebraska. Medved's wife, Laura, unsuccessfully sought to intervene in an action ANB filed against Medved in the district court for Douglas County. The district court denied her motion and issued charging orders against Medved's transferable interest in three Nebraska limited liability companies. Laura also unsuccessfully sought to intervene in an action filed in the district court for Sarpy County. The Sarpy County action resulted in a garnishment of Medved's wages. Medved appealed and Laura cross-appealed, arguing that the Nebraska order violated their rights under Arizona community property law because the earnings and distributions from the limited liability companies were Medved and Laura's community property and were protected by Arizona law. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that under either Arizona or Nebraska law, there was no error in the enforcement of the judgment.