Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

In 2007, Suarez, a 75-year-old widower from Mexico, opened a checking account at an Illinois Chase Bank. DeMarco, the branch manager, assisted him. The two became friends. Suarez was trying to sell his three acre property, listed for $1.8 million. DeMarco convinced Suarez to break his listing contract, indicating that he had a buyer. DeMarco told Suarez that he needed a home equity line of credit (HELOC) to complete the sale. DeMarco obtained a $250,000 HELOC, under Suarez’s name, secured by Suarez’s property. DeMarco caused the lender to transfer the proceeds into a joint checking account, which he opened in his and Suarez’s name. After the transfer, DeMarco withdrew $245,000 and deposited the funds into his personal account. After Chase terminated his employment, DeMarco transferred the funds into new accounts and spent most of the proceeds to pay off his credit card debt, improve his home and on cars and vacations. He used a small fraction of the money to pay off Suarez’s debts. Suarez later noted irregularities in his bank statement and contacted the FBI. DeMarco was convicted of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343 and sentenced to 48 months in prison. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to evidentiary rulings and to the sentence, claiming that the court erred by applying a two-level increase to his base offense level for abuse of a position of trust, U.S.S.G. 3B1.3, and the use of sophisticated means, U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1). View "United States v. DeMarco" on Justia Law

After voters in School District rejected a bond proposal to construct an addition to existing high school building, School District entered into a lease-purchase agreement with Bank, which agreed to finance the project. Appellants, residents and taxpayers in the school district, sought declaratory and injunctive relief contending that the agreement violated Neb. Rev. Stat. 79-10,105. The trial court denied relief, concluding (1) under section 79-10,105, lease-purchase agreements may be used to make school improvements without the voters’ approval if the project is not funded by bonded debt; and (2) School District in this case did not fund the project through bonded indebtedness. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellants’ claims were moot because, as of the time of this appeal, the addition had been completed, but the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine applied; and (2) section 79-10,105 does not prohibit a school district from entering into a lease-purchase agreement to finance a capital construction project if it has not created a nonprofit corporation to issue bonds for the school district, and because there was no evidence that this occurred in this case, School District did not violate section 79-10,105 by entering into the lease-purchase agreement with Bank. View "Nebuda v. Dodge County Sch. Dist. 0062" on Justia Law

In 2005, Lee, a Sevierville contractor, owed a substantial debt to Whaley, for loans that financed houses being built by Lee. Whaley proposed to recruit straw buyers for sham purchases of the properties. Eight straw buyers were referred to Bevins, a mortgage broker with whom Whaley had previously dealt. Whaley prepared the contracts and set the prices. Bevins prepared loan applications that falsely inflated the buyers’ incomes and assets and stated that they would bring funds to closing. The closings were conducted by Kerley’s title company. Although none of the buyers brought funds to the closings, Kerley signed HUD-1 forms, indicating that they did. The properties later went into foreclosure. The lenders incurred substantial losses. Lee and Bevins pled guilty and agreed to cooperate. The judge denied Kerley’s motion to sever, concluding that proposed redactions to Whaley’s statement remedied potential violation of Kerley’s Confrontation Clause rights and held that Whaley was not entitled to introduce his own hearsay statements. Both were convicted of money laundering, conspiracy to commit wire fraud affecting a financial institution and bank fraud, wire fraud affecting a financial institution, bank fraud, and making a false statement to a financial institution. They were sentenced to 60 months and 48 months imprisonment, respectively, and ordered to pay $1,901,980.31 in restitution. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions and Kerley’s sentence, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary rulings, and the court’s refusal to sever. View "United States v. Whaley" on Justia Law

In 2010, Bank filed a foreclosure action against Defendants for allegedly defaulting on a promissory note. The trial court granted Bank’s motion for summary judgment and issued a decree of foreclosure in Bank’s favor. Defendants appealed, asserting four assignments of error, none of which challenged the court’s conclusion that Bank had standing to bring the foreclosure suit. Rather than considering Defendants’ assignments of error, the court of appeals sua sponte considered the issue of standing and held that Bank lacked standing to bring this foreclosure action. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Bank had standing to file the foreclosure action against Defendants at the time that it filed the complaint in 2010. Remanded. View "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Horn" on Justia Law

The Barnes Banking Company (the "Bank") had been placed into Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC") receivership in 2010. Three shareholders in Barnes Bancorporation (the "Holding Company"), parent of the failed bank, brought suit against the Holding Company and its officers and directors. The district court’s dismissal of their suit was on the basis that most of the claims advanced by the plaintiffs were owned solely by the FDIC under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 ("FIRREA"), and the remaining allegations were insufficient to state a claim. The shareholders appealed the district court's decision, but the Tenth Circuit agreed: because almost all of the plaintiffs’ claims asserted injury to the Holding Company that was derivative of harm to the Bank, those claims belonged to the FDIC. Furthermore, the one theory of recovery advanced by plaintiffs that identified claims not owned by the FDIC under FIRREA (which involves the alleged misappropriation of $265,000), was pled in too conclusory a fashion. View "Barnes v. Harris" on Justia Law

In 2010, Plaintiffs purchased real estate from Charter West National Bank. Plaintiffs later filed suit, alleging that Charter West represented that the property would be free and clear of all liens but manipulated the language of the deed to reflect that the conveyance was subject to liens of record. Charter West moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the real estate purchase agreement, which contained an arbitration clause. Plaintiffs filed an objection asserting that the arbitration clause was void because it failed to comply with Nebraska’s Uniform Arbitration Act, and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) was inapplicable because the transaction did not involve interstate commerce. The district court denied the motion to compel arbitration without prejudice based on a lack of evidence that the transaction affected interstate commerce as to trigger the provisions of the FAA. Charter West appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that there was no final, appealable order entered by the district court capable of appellate review. View "Wilczewski v. Charter West Nat'l Bank" on Justia Law

After Plaintiff defaulted on a mortgage loan secured by her property, a complaint was filed in the Massachusetts land court as a preliminary step to foreclose on Plaintiff’s house. Plaintiff subsequently filed this case in federal district court against Defendants, asserting multiple claims arising from the purportedly invalid transfer and assignment of the mortgage on her home. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. While this appeal was pending, the parties reached an agreement, which resulted in the mortgage loan becoming current and Plaintiff no longer being subject to any actual or threatened foreclosure proceedings. The First Circuit dismissed this appeal as moot, holding that the circumstances evolved in such a way that there was no longer a live case or controversy. View "Matt v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was a 2006 amendment to the “obsolete mortgage” statute, under which a mortgage becomes unenforceable after a certain number of years. A mortgage in which the term or maturity date is stated becomes unenforceable five years after the expiration of the term, and a mortgage in which the term or maturity date is not stated becomes unenforceable thirty-five years after recording. Here, Defendant conducted a foreclosure auction purporting to sell certain property that secured two mortgages held by Defendant. At the time, both mortgages would be unenforceable under the amended obsolete mortgage statute if the five-year statute of limitations was applicable. Plaintiff sought a declaration that the mortgages were discharged under the obsolete mortgage statute and that the foreclosure auction was null and void. A land court judge granted partial summary judgment for Plaintiff, concluding that a reference in the mortgages to the term of the underlying debt was sufficient to state the “term or maturity date of the mortgage.” The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the two mortgages were subject to the five-year period and thus were discharged under the obsolete mortgage statute; and (2) the application of the statute in this case did not violate due process and contracts clause protections. View "Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Fitchburg Capital, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2014, the Eighth Circuit held that the Petersons’ claim for rescission under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601, was time-barred by 15 U.S.C. 1635(f) because of their failure to file a lawsuit within three years of their transaction with Bank of America. In 2015, the Supreme Court held that another court had erred in holding that a borrower’s failure to file a suit for rescission within three years of the transaction’s consummation extinguishes the right to rescind and bars relief. Following remand by the Court, the Eighth Circuit vacated it earlier judgment and remanded. View "Bank of America v. Peterson" on Justia Law

After Defendants fell behind on their mortgage payments, their lender (“the Bank”) commenced a non-judicial foreclosure sale of the property, acquired the property at auction, and filed an ejectment action. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the Bank, judgment for possession, and a writ of possession (“the April 12th orders”). Defendants filed a motion to reconsider. Defendant later filed an amended Haw. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment. The circuit court denied Defendants’ motion to reconsider but did not dispose of the amended Rule 60(b) motion. Defendants appealed. The intermediate court of appeals (ICA) determined that the appeal from the April 12th orders and motion to reconsider was untimely and ruled that the appeal was premature with respect to the amended Rule 60(b) motion. The Supreme Court (1) vacated the portion of the ICA dismissal order concluding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the appeal of the April 12th orders and the motion to reconsider, holding that the ICA had appellate jurisdiction over this portion of the appeal; and (2) affirmed the portion of the ICA dismissal order dismissing any appeal of the amended Rule 60(b) motion, holding that the ICA lacked jurisdiction over this portion of the appeal. View "Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Amasol" on Justia Law