Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Tribeca sued after First American refunded a $1 million deposit to a real estate investor out of an escrow account that Tribeca had opened. Tribeca claimed it was entitled to the deposit and asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and negligence. The trial judge and court of appeal ruled in favor of First American. The escrow instructions did not require that the funds, which had been deposited by a third party, be subject to Tribeca’s directions. First American’s expert witness testified that its conduct fell within the standard of care and that returning the money to the depositor was proper. The court credited the testimony of that expert above the testimony of the Tribeca expert. View "Tribeca Co. v. First American Title Ins." on Justia Law

Appellants Heang Ouch and Morcos Hanna sought to represent a putative class of borrowers who had not kept up with their mortgage loan payments. The borrowers’ loan servicers made a number of contractually-mandated advances (dubbed “delinquency advances”) of funds to the holders of the notes. The loan servicers also, as agents of the holders of the notes, initiated foreclosure proceedings against the borrowers. The borrowers filed separate suits arguing that, despite their non-payment, the servicers’ delinquency advances constituted payments on the borrowers’ debts, that their mortgages were not in default and, accordingly, that the mortgage-holders lacked the power to foreclose. The district court concluded that the services’ payments were not made “on behalf of” the borrowers. The First Circuit consolidated Ouch’s and Hanna’s appeals and affirmed the district court’s rulings denying an amendment to Ouch’s complaint and dismissing Hanna’s complaint with prejudice, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that the payments were not made “on behalf of” the borrowers. View "Ouch v. Fed. Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, alleging that Capital One violated certain provisions of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692–1692p, by attempting to collect on defaulted or delinquent credit card accounts that Capital One had acquired from HSBC. The district court dismissed plaintiff's amended complaint. The court concluded that it need look no further than the statutory text to conclude that, under the plain language of the FDCPA, a bank (or any person or entity) does not qualify as a “debt collector” where the bank does not regularly collect or attempt to collect on debts “owed or due another” and where “the collection of any debts” is not “the principal purpose” of the bank’s business, even where the consumer’s debt was in default at the time the bank acquired it. In this case, the amended complaint’s factual matter establishes that Capital One’s collection efforts in this case related only to debts owed to it and that debt collection is only some part of, and not the principal purpose of, Capital One’s business. Therefore, Capital One's activity, as alleged by plaintiff, is not the activity of a “debt collector” under the FDCPA, and plaintiff cannot state a claim under the Act. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Davidson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A." on Justia Law

In the underlying putative class action, counsel for the named plaintiffs obtained a collection of records owned by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase). Plaintiffs sought to rely on the documents to pursue claims sounding in fraud, deceit, and conversion against Chase. A dispute arose as to whether portions of the Chase records were shielded from discovery and litigation under a provision of Bank Secrecy Act and related regulations. A magistrate judge reviewed all of the disputed documents in camera and concluded that the majority of the documents were not shielded by statute or regulation. Chase then initiated this mandamus proceeding, asking the First Circuit to intervene by declaring that the Act and related regulations shielded an additional fifty-five pages of Chase records from production or use in the putative class action. The First Circuit denied the petition for writ of mandamus, holding that, even assuming that the Act and regulations apply, the documents at dispute would not be shielded from discovery or use in litigation. View "In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Junior creditor Car-X Associates Corporation sued a mortgagee to foreclose on a lien. In addition to the mortgagee, Car-X’s complaint named senior creditor Huntington National Bank as a defendant to answer as to any interest it may have in the real estate. When Huntington failed to timely respond to the complaint and summons Car-X obtained a default judgment against Huntington. Huntington moved to set aside the default judgment under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(1) because of its excusable neglect and under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B)(8) because such relief would be just and equitable under the circumstances. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the trial court’s denial of Huntington’s motion to set aside the default judgment for excusable neglect; but (2) remanded to the trial court to reconsider whether equitable reasons support granting Huntington’s motion under Trial Rule 60(B)(8), especially in light of Huntington’s meritorious defense to the underlying foreclosure suit, the substantial amount of money involved, and Car-X’s lack of prejudice from the delay. View "Huntington Nat’l Bank v. Car-X Assocs. Corp." on Justia Law

This case arose out of a failed development project undertaken by BRN Development, Inc. in Coeur d’Alene. The project was for the development of a high-end 325-unit residential and golf course community on the west side of Lake Coeur d'Alene known as "Black Rock North." American Bank was the lender for this project. The Bank ultimately brought a foreclosure action against BRN. BRN brought a cross-claim against Taylor Engineering, Inc., alleging negligence for its role in the development. Taylor recorded a lien against the development. BRN defaulted on the loan, and the Bank named BRN, Taylor, and any other entity claiming an interest in the development. Taylor made a demand on BRN for payment for services rendered. The demand stated that Taylor would "complete the necessary documents" and request the necessary signatures from the local government entities involved in the final PUD approval. Taylor advised BRN that "if the final subdivision approval is not completed and recorded by May 29, 2009, the PUD and preliminary plat approval will expire, the PUD and plat will not vest in the recorded ownership to the real property involved, and the property will revert to its prior zoning and density." This statement was erroneous; it was undisputed that the final plat did not need to be recorded by May 29 in order to vest the PUD. In BRN's cross-claim against Taylor, it alleged professional negligence, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, and failure to disclose based on the erroneous statement Taylor made in its demand letter. The district court separated the claims between Taylor and BRN from the remainder of the American Bank litigation and ultimately held that Taylor was not liable to BRN. BRN appealed. The Supreme Court found no reversible error with the district court's judgment that BRN failed to meet its burden of proving its claims against Taylor, and affirmed that court's judgment. View "American Bank v. BRN Dev." on Justia Law

The FDIC-R filed a civil action against several officers and directors of a North Carolina bank, Cooperative Bank, alleging that the officers and directors were negligent, grossly negligent, and breached their fiduciary duties, resulting in the failure of the Bank. On appeal, the FDIC-R argued that the district court erred in finding that North Carolina’s business judgment rule shields the officers and directors from allegations of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty, and that there was insufficient evidence to support claims of gross negligence. The court vacated the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the FDIC-R’s claims of ordinary negligence and breach of fiduciary duty as to the Officer Defendants because the court found that there is sufficient evidence to rebut the initial evidentiary presumption of the North Carolina business judgment rule; reversed and remanded the district court’s order denying as moot the FDIC-R’s cross-motion for summary judgment, as well as its order denying as moot the FDIC-R’s motion to exclude the declaration of Robert T. Gammill and the attached exhibits; and affirmed the district court’s judgment with respect to the remaining claims. View "FDIC v. Rippy" on Justia Law

Defendants executed a note and mortgage deed in favor of a third party, and after several transactions, all rights created by the instruments were assigned to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Defendants later defaulted, and Wells Fargo initiated this action for foreclosure. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that the notice of default issued by Wells Fargo did not comply with Me. Rev. Stat. 14, 6111. The district court granted Defendants’ motion and entered summary judgment for them. In that same order, the court dismissed the foreclosure action without prejudice. The court then amended its previous order so that summary judgment was granted “in part.” The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the court’s orders of partial summary judgment and dismissal of the foreclosure action, holding that the trial court erred by granting less than full summary judgment and by dismissing the foreclosure action without prejudice. Remanded for reinstatement of the initial entry of full summary judgment in favor of Defendants. View "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Girouard" on Justia Law

This case concerns an IRS regulation that imposes a “penalty” on U.S. banks that fail to report interest paid to certain foreign account-holders. Two Bankers Associations challenged the legality of the regulation. At issue was whether a challenge to a tax-related statutory or regulatory requirement that is enforced by a “penalty” – as opposed to a challenge to a statute or regulation that imposes a tax – is covered by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. 7421. The court concluded that the Tax Code defines some penalties as taxes for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. In those cases, such as the one here, the Anti-Injunction Act ordinarily applies because the suit, if successful, would invalidate the regulation and thereby directly prevent collection of the tax. The penalty at issue here is located in Chapter 68, Subchapter B of the Tax Code. The Tax Code provides that penalties in Chapter 68, Subchapter B are treated as taxes under the Anti-Injunction Act. Accordingly, the Anti-Injunction Act bars this suit as premature. The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded with directions to dismiss the case. View "Florida Bankers Ass'n v. US Dep't of the Treasury" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellants Carl McCaffree, Jimmy Helvey, and Sam McCaffree (director-defendants) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to BancInsure, Inc. BancInsure issued a Directors and Officers Liability Insurance Policy to Columbian and its parent Columbian Financial Corporation (CFC). the Kansas State Bank Commissioner declared Columbian insolvent and appointed the FDIC as receiver. By operation of law, the FDIC-R succeeded to "all rights, titles, powers, and privileges of [Columbian], and of any stockholder, member, accountholder, depositor, officer, or director" of Columbian. BancInsure received notice of potential claims the FDIC-R intended to file against the bank's officers and directors. In anticipation of such a suit, CFC and director-defendant Carl McCaffree brought suit against BancInsure seeking a declaratory judgment that the policy covered claims made after the date Columbian was declared insolvent, but before the expiration of the policy. The district court ultimately held that the policy remained in effect until May 11, 2010, relying in part on its finding that a regulatory endorsement in the policy "provide[d] coverage for actions brought by deposit insurance organizations as receivers during the policy year," which would have been meaningless if the policy terminated upon appointment of a receiver. On appeal, the Tenth Circuit sua sponte determined that no case or controversy existed at the time of the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions to vacate the judgment for lack of jurisdiction. BancInsure filed the instant action against the director-defendants in Kansas state court seeking a declaratory judgment that it owed no duty of coverage to the director-defendants for claims brought against them by the FDIC-R. The FDIC-R joined and removed the action to the federal district court in Kansas. At approximately the same time, the FDIC-R brought claims against several of Columbian's former directors and officers alleging negligence, gross negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court held that claims by the FDIC-R were unambiguously excluded by the policy's "insured v. insured" exclusion and that BancInsure was not judicially estopped from denying coverage. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "BancInsure v. FDIC" on Justia Law