Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Garofolo took out a $159,700 home-equity loan. She made timely payments and paid off the loan in, 2014. Ocwen had become the note’s holder. A release of lien was promptly recorded in Travis County, but Garofolo did not receive a release of lien in recordable form as required by her loan’s terms. Garofolo notified Ocwen she had not received the document. Upon passage of 60 days following that notification, and still without the release, Garofolo sued, alleging violation of the home-equity lending provisions of the Texas Constitution and breach of contract. She sought forfeiture of all principal and interest paid on the loan. The federal district court dismissed. The Fifth Circuit certified questions of law to the Texas Supreme Court, which responded that the constitution lays out the terms and conditions a home equity loan must include if the lender wishes to foreclose on a homestead following borrower default, but does not create a constitutional cause of action or remedy for a lender’s breach of those conditions. A post-origination breach of terms and conditions may give rise to a breach-of-contract claim for which forfeiture can sometimes be an appropriate remedy. When forfeiture is unavailable, the borrower must show actual damages or seek some other remedy such as specific performance. View "Garofolo v. Ocwen Loan Serv., L.L.C." on Justia Law

The Fangmans sought to represent a class of approximately 4,000 to 5,000 individuals who, from 2009 to 2014, retained Genuine Title for settlement and title services and utilized various lenders for the purchase and/or refinancing of their residences, allegedly as a result of referrals from the lenders. All of the lenders are servicers of federally related mortgage loans. The complaint alleges an illegal kickback scheme and that “sham companies” that were created by Genuine Title to conceal the kickbacks, which were not disclosed on the HUD-1 form. After dismissing most of the federal claims, the federal court certified to the Maryland Court of Appeals the question of law: Does Md. Code , Real Prop. [(1974, 2015 Repl. Vol.) 14-127 imply a private right of action?” The statute prohibits certain consideration in real estate transactions. That court responded “no” and held that RP 14-127 does not contain an express or implied private right of action, as neither its plain language, legislative history, nor legislative purpose demonstrates any intent on the General Assembly’s part to create a private right of action. View "Fangman v. Genuine Title, LLC" on Justia Law

In this action for wrongful foreclosure, the homeowner, Monica Sciarratta, alleged that as a result of a void assignment of her promissory note and deed of trust, the entity that conducted a nonjudicial foreclosure sale on her home had no interest in either the underlying debt or the subject property. In Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp., (62 Cal.4th 919 (2016)), the California Supreme Court held that the homeowner has standing to sue for wrongful foreclosure. However, Yvanova did not address "any of the substantive elements of the wrongful foreclosure tort," and in particular did not address "prejudice . . . as an element of wrongful foreclosure." The issue this case presented was the question of "prejudice" left open in Yvanova: The Court of Appeal found that policy considerations that drove the standing analysis in Yvanova compelled a similar result in this case. "[A] homeowner who has been foreclosed on by one with no right to do so -by those facts alone- sustains prejudice or harm sufficient to constitute a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure. When a non-debtholder forecloses, a homeowner is harmed by losing her home to an entity with no legal right to take it. Therefore under those circumstances, the void assignment is the proximate cause of actual injury and all that is required to be alleged to satisfy the element of prejudice or harm in a wrongful foreclosure cause of action." The opposite rule, urged by defendants in this case, would allow an entity to foreclose with impunity on homes that were worth less than the amount of the debt, even if there were no legal justification whatsoever for the foreclosure. "The potential consequences of wrongfully evicting homeowners are too severe to allow such a result." The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court erroneously sustained a demurrer to Sciarratta's first amended complaint without leave to amend, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Sciarratta v. U.S. Bank" on Justia Law

A condominium board commenced a foreclosure action on a condominium unit to recover unpaid common charges owed by the previous unit owner. Two mortgages were consolidated into a single mortgage lien years before the condominium board filed its common charges lien. Plaintiff, the winning bidder in the foreclosure action, commenced this action seeking a judgment declaring that the second mortgage was subordinate to the subsequently recorded common charges lien and was therefore extinguished by the condominium board’s successful action. Supreme Court declared that the consolidation agreement was the first mortgage of record and that Plaintiff purchased the unit subject to the consolidated mortgage. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the consolidated mortgage qualifies as the first mortgage of record under N.Y. Real Prop. Law 9-B. View "Plotch v. Citibank, N.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiff purchased certain property at a tax sale and then filed a petition to foreclose tax lien seeking to foreclose Bank’s right of redemption with respect to the property. Bank did not timely file an answer after its receipt of the petition. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for entry of default and final decree and a motion for decree pro confesso. Thereafter, Bank filed a motion to file a late answer and its response to the petition, which contained an offer to redeem. The trial justice granted Bank’s motion to file a late answer and Bank’s request for redemption. The court then entered judgment allowing Bank and redeem the property and setting forth the amount of redemption. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the superior court, holding (1) Bank’s motion to file a late answer should have been denied because there was no good cause shown for Bank’s failure to comply with the deadline set out in the petition; and (2) accordingly, Bank was in default and should not have been permitted to redeem the property. View "Conley v. Fontaine" on Justia Law

In 2004, Brown obtained a $450,000 loan secured by a deed of trust recorded against her Oakland property, identifying Washington Mutual as the lender and beneficiary and CRC as the trustee. Washington Mutual failed in 2008. The FDIC was appointed its receiver and sold Chase many of the assets and liabilities (P&A Agreement). In 2011, CRC recorded a notice of default as trustee for Chase, claiming that Brown was in arrears by $60,984.42. Chase then assigned the deed of trust to Deutsche Bank; CRC remained as the trustee and recorded a notice of sale. In 2012, Brown filed the first of three lawsuits challenging the foreclosure. In 2013, CRC executed a third notice of sale. Two days later, Brown filed her third lawsuit, alleging that the assignment to Deutsche Bank was invalid and the foreclosure proceedings were initiated without authority. The trial court granted a request for judicial notice, which covered foreclosure-related documents, filings from the earlier lawsuits, and the P&A Agreement, then dismissed without leave to amend. The court of appeal affirmed. Brown‟s contention that Deutsche Bank and CRC lacked authority to enforce the deed of trust was contradicted by matters subject to judicial notice. View "Brown v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co." on Justia Law

Relators filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1)(A), alleging that Wells Fargo defrauded the government within the meaning of the FCA by falsely certifying that they were in compliance with various banking laws and regulations when they borrowed money at favorable rates from the Federal Reserve’s discount window. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. The district court held that the banks’ certifications of compliance were too general to constitute legally false claims under the FCA and that relators had otherwise failed to allege their fraud claims with particularity. The court agreed, concluding that it has long recognized that the FCA was not designed to reach every kind of fraud practiced on the Government. Even assuming relators’ accusations of widespread fraud are true, they have not plausibly connected those accusations to express or implied false claims submitted to the government for payment, as required to collect the treble damages and other statutory penalties available under the FCA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dismissal of the suit. View "Bishop v. Wells Fargo" on Justia Law

In 2011, Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston (Bank), a federally-chartered entity pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1432(a), filed suit against multiple defendants, including Moody’s Corporation and Moody’s Investors Service, Inc. (collectively, Moody’s), in Massachusetts state court alleging that various rating agencies falsely gave out triple-A ratings to mortgage-backed securities that were riskier than indicated by their ratings. Some of the defendants, but not Moody’s, removed the case to the Massachusetts federal district court on the grounds that the Bank was federally chartered. Moody’s then moved to dismiss on the ground that the Massachusetts district court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. The district judge ultimately granted the motion, concluding that personal jurisdiction was lacking after Daimler AG v. Bauman, and entered separate and final judgment in favor of Moody’s. The district judge also denied the Bank’s motion to sever its claims against Moody’s from those against the other defendants and transfer them to the Southern District of New York. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal order, holding that the district court erred in concluding that it lacked statutory power to transfer the claims against Moody’s to the Southern District of New York. Remanded. View "Fed. Home Loan Bank of Bost v. Moody's Corp." on Justia Law

Abbey Springs Condominium Association, Inc. and Abbey Springs, Inc. (collectively, Abbey Springs) have a policy forbidding both current and subsequent unit owners from utilizing recreational facilities until unpaid condominium assessments are paid in full. Following a foreclosure action and sheriff’s sale of the property to Walworth State Bank, the Bank paid the former owner’s outstanding assessment under protest. The Bank filed suit against Abbey Springs, asserting that the policy violates Wisconsin law by impermissibly reviving a lien on the condominium units that was eliminated by the foreclosure action. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the condominium policy effectively revived the lien against the property that the foreclosure judgment entered against Abbey Springs and the former unit owners had extinguished, and therefore, the policy violates well-established foreclosure law and the foreclosure judgment entered in the underlying foreclosure action. Remanded. View "Walworth State Bank v. Abbey Springs Condo. Ass’n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, daughter of Martin Schmidt, filed suit against Wells Fargo in Texas state court for negligence, promissory estoppel, and conversion. After removal to federal court, the district court granted summary judgment based on California Probate Code 13106(a), which discharges the holder of funds “from any further liability with respect to the money or property” upon receipt of an affidavit conforming to certain statutory requirements. The court concluded that, because plaintiff has failed to probate her father’s will, the only statutory claim that she may possibly have is under California’s laws of intestate succession, which give a decedent’s surviving children a share in the estate not passing to the decedent’s surviving spouse. A claim under the laws of intestacy, however, is inferior to a claim under the laws of testate succession, and it is questionable whether a claim to a percentage of an estate equates to a claim to specific assets in the estate, like the Wells Fargo bank accounts at issue here. The court also noted that plaintiff has waived any argument based on intestate succession by failing to raise the issue in the district court or in her briefs on appeal. Therefore, the court held that it is immaterial that plaintiff gave Wells Fargo actual notice or whether she reasonably and detrimentally relied on any representation by Wells Fargo’s Houston employees. The California legislative scheme grants Wells Fargo immunity from any injury that plaintiff may have suffered from the disbursement of funds to her stepmother. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Di Angelo v. Wells Fargo" on Justia Law