Justia Banking Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff sought a thirty-year residential financing loan from the predecessor to U.S. Bank in the amount of $300,000. Three years later, Plaintiff filed suit against U.S. Bank alleging that the Bank committed fraud by issuing, without notice, an eighteen-month, $300,000 commercial loan, rather than the thirty-year residential property loan for which she applied. A jury ultimately found in favor of Plaintiff and awarded her $1,000,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000,000 in punitive damages. The district court confirmed the punitive damages award and ordered that post-judgment interest would accrue from the of its decision. The Bank appealed, and Plaintiff cross-appealed. The Supreme court affirmed the direct appeal and reversed the cross-appeal, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion by excluding law witness testimony and Plaintiff’s medical records; (2) correctly concluded that the Bank committed actual fraud; (3) did not err in holding U.S. Bank liable for punitive damages arising out of Heritage Bank’s pre-merger conduct; (4) did not err in upholding the jury’s award of punitive damages; but (5) erred by ordering accrual of post-judgment interest from the date of its decision. View "McCulley v. U.S. Bank of Montana" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the effect of a subordination agreement between fewer than all of the creditors who hold an interest in the same collateral. Appellant VCS, Inc. provided labor and materials to improve real property located in a planned unit development. The developer, Acord Meadows, secured funding for the project from America West Bank and Utah Funding Commercial. The loans were secured with trust deeds to the development properties, and the lenders entered into subordination agreements among themselves that altered the priority arrangement of their trust deeds. Because VCS was never paid for its work, it filed a mechanic’s lien covering several lots of the development, four of which were sold through a foreclosure sale after Acord defaulted on its loans from Utah Funding. VCS claimed it was entitled to payment of its mechanic’s lien because its lien had priority over Utah Funding’s liens. The district court ruled that VCS’s mechanic’s lien was extinguished by the foreclosure of Utah Funding’s liens. The Supreme Court affirmed after adopting the partial subordination approach to the issue in this case, holding that under the partial subordination approach, VCS’s mechanic’s lien was extinguished once Utah Funding’s lien was foreclosed upon. View "VCS Inc. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc." on Justia Law

This case was the companion interlocutory appeal with facts that mirrored Iowa Dep’t of Human Servs. v. DeWitt Bank and Trust Co., decided on the day of this opinion. As in DeWitt Bank, the Iowa Department of Human Services filed an application for relief against defendant healthcare providers under Iowa Code 249A.44. The district court appointed a receiver. Bank Iowa, a lender that held perfected security interests in Defendants’ property, intervened and challenged the receiver’s applications for fees and expenses. The district court concluded that receivership expenses should be paid out of property in which the Bank had prior lien interests. The Supreme Court reversed based on the reasoning set forth in DeWitt Bank, holding that Iowa follows the common law rule that a receiver may be charged against a third party’s security interest only to the extent the secured creditor has received a benefit from the receivership or the secured creditor has consented to the receivership. Remanded. View "Iowa Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Morse Healthcare Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

DeWitt Bank & Trust Company (Bank) held perfected security interests on real and personal property of Community Care, Inc. (CCI). When the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) determined that CCI had committed Medicaid fraud, DHS filed an application for injunctive relief under Iowa Code 249A.44. The district court enjoined CCI from transferring property or taking action inconsistent with DHS’s right to recover overpayments of medical assistance from CCI. CCI subsequently ceased operations, and the district court appointed a receiver for CCI. The Bank sought clarification that the receiver’s fees and expenses would not be paid out of CCI assets in which the Bank had a prior perfected security lien. The district court denied substantive relief, concluding that Iowa law requires the expenses of the receiver to be paid before secured creditors. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Iowa law does not authorize a receiver to be paid out of assets that are subject to a prior perfected line; and (2) rather, Iowa follows the common law rule that the costs of a receiver may be charged against a third party’s security interest only to the extent the secured creditor has received a benefit from the receivership or the secured creditor has consented to the receivership. View "Iowa Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Cmty. Care, Inc." on Justia Law

Respondents obtained a home-equity loan from Wells Fargo Bank. After Respondents stopped making loan payments, Wells Fargo filed an application in the district court for an expedited court order authorizing foreclosure. Respondents filed a separate and original declaratory judgment action that invoked the automatic stay and dismissal provisions of Tex. R. Civ. P. 736.11. Wells Fargo filed an amended answer asserting a counterclaim for declaratory judgment and requesting attorney’s fees pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. The trial court granted Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment and awarded attorney’s fees, concluding that Respondents had defaulted on their home-equity loan. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment but reversed the attorney’s fee award, concluding that neither party had pleaded a cognizable claim for declaratory relief, and the non-recourse status of the home-equity loan prohibited a personal judgment for attorney’s fees against Respondents. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) because Respondents failed to preserve any challenge to the characterization of their own claim for declaratory relief, the trial court was authorized to enter a judgment awarding Wells Fargo its attorney’s fees; and (2) neither the parties’ loan agreement nor the Texas Constitution prohibited a personal judgment against Respondents for attorney’s fees. View "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Murphy" on Justia Law

Kaymark defaulted on a mortgage held by Bank of America (BOA). On behalf of BOA, Udren Law Offices initiated foreclosure proceedings. The body of the Foreclosure Complaint listed not-yet-incurred fees as due and owing, which, Kaymark alleged, violated state and federal fair debt collection laws and breached the mortgage contract. The Third Circuit reversed dismissal of claims that the disputed fees constituted actionable misrepresentation under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692, but affirmed dismissal of all other claims. By attempting to collect fees for legal services not yet performed in the mortgage foreclosure, Udren violated FDCPA section 1692e(2)(A), (5), and (10), which imposes strict liability on debt collectors who “use any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt,” and section 1692f(1) by attempting to collect “an[] amount (including any interest, fee, charge, or expense incidental to the principal obligation) unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.” The court analogized to similar claims in a debt collection demand letter. View "Kaymark v. Bank of America NA" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs obtained a home loan and granted a mortgage that was eventually assigned to Bank of America (BOA). Plaintiffs defaulted in 2007. In 2011, plaintiffs received a letter explaining the right to seek a loan modification. Plaintiffs sought assistance from NMCA; met with BOA’s counsel; provided information and forms prepared with help from NMCA; and were offered reduced payments for a three-month trial period. If all trial period payments were timely, the loan would be permanently modified. Plaintiffs allege that they made the three payments, but did not receive any further information, and that BOA returned two payments. BOA offered plaintiffs a permanent loan modification, instructing plaintiffs to execute and return a loan modification agreement. Plaintiffs do not allege that they returned the agreement. BOA never received the documents. BOA sent a letter informing them that because they were in default and had not accepted the modification agreement, a nonjudicial foreclosure would proceed. Notice was published. The property was sold at a sheriff’s sale. BOA purchased the property, and executed a quitclaim deed to Federal National Mortgage Association, which filed a possession action after the redemption period expired. Six months later, plaintiffs sued, claiming Quiet Title; violations of due process rights; and illegal/improper foreclosure and sheriff’s sale. The district court dismissed all claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the Michigan foreclosure procedure does not violate due process. View "Garcia v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n" on Justia Law

Respondent borrowed money from Bank pursuant to a construction loan agreement and promissory note. Defendant secured his obligations by executing a deed of trust on property. After Respondent defaulted on the note, Bank foreclosed its contractual deed of trust lien on the property. Bank purchased the property for less than the secured debt. Respondent sued Bank, arguing that Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 51.003 required Bank to offset the property’s fair market value on the date of foreclosure against any judgment in favor of Bank. Bank counterclaimed for damages and attorney’s fees. The trial court rendered judgment for Bank, concluding that section 51.003 did not apply. The court of appeals reversed, determining (1) Respondent’s deficiency must be calculated pursuant to section 51.003, and the term “fair market value” as used in the statute is the historical willing-seller/willing-buyer definition of fair market value; and (2) a factual question existed requiring further proceedings. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) section 51.003 applies to this case, but the term “fair market value” in that section does not equate precisely to the historical definition; and (2) the trial court did not err in its finding as to the section 51.003 fair market value of the property on the date of the foreclosure sale. View "PlainsCapital Bank v. Martin" on Justia Law

In 2011, Eminence Investors, LLLP (Plaintiff) brought suit against against The Bank of New York Mellon (Defendant). Nearly two years later, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding class allegations on behalf of more than 100 class members and requesting compensatory damages expected to exceed $10 million. Within thirty days of the filing of the complaint, Defendant removed the action to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Plaintiff moved to remand the case to state court. The district court remanded the case to state court, concluding that removal was untimely. Defendant appealed. A panel of the Ninth Circuit dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction the appeal, holding that the securities exception from CAFA removal applied to this case. View "Eminence Investors, LLLP v. Bank of New York Mellon" on Justia Law

After an LLC defaulted on a loan that had been used to purchase property for a section 1031 exchange, the lender’s successor brought a deficiency action to enforce commercial guaranty agreements executed by defendants Bradley and Yates, the managers of the LLC. They argued the guaranties were shams, and therefore unenforceable, due to their close relationship with the borrower on the subject loan, the LLC. Defendants filed a counterclaim, asserting that attempts to enforce the guaranties constituted an unfair business practice in violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, 17200). Under California law, a lender may not pursue a deficiency judgment against a borrower where the sale of property securing a debt produces proceeds insufficient to cover the amount of the debt. Lenders may pursue deficiency judgments against guarantors, but only true guarantors. Where the borrower and the guarantor are the same, the guaranty is considered an unenforceable sham. The jury found in favor of defendants on the sham issue, but the court rejected defendants’ UCL counterclaim. The court of appeal reversed, holding that substantial evidence did not support the finding that the guaranties were shams. View "CADC/RAD Venture v. Bradley" on Justia Law