Wong v. Bann-Cor Mortgage, No. 14-1921 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThe plaintiffs obtained second mortgage loans on their homes through Bann-Cor. After Bann-Cor executed their loan agreements, it sold or assigned the loans and the accompanying mortgage liens to the defendants. The borrowers alleged that the defendants, either directly or indirectly, charged, contracted for, or received fees that were impermissible under the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act. About 15 years ago, the borrowers first filed suit in Missouri state court against Bann-Cor. The borrowers periodically sought leave to amend the complaint and add additional defendants. After two removals to federal court and two remands, the borrowers filed their sixth amended complaint in 2010, which for the first time added Wells Fargo as a party. Wells Fargo removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, and the district court denied the borrowers’ motion to remand. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the subsequent dismissal on grounds that the borrowers lacked standing to pursue their claims against defendants who did not personally service their loans and that a three-year statute of limitations barred the action against remaining defendants.
Court Description: Shepherd, Author, with Murphy, Circuit Judge, and Brooks, District Judge] Civil case - Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act. The district court correctly found that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their claim for improper fee collection against some of the named lenders because those defendants never personally serviced the loan or were never assigned the borrowers' loans; Rashaw v. United Consumers Credit Union, 685 F.3d 739 (8th Cir. 2012), was a complete rejection of the Missouri Court of Appeals decision that claims under the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act were governed by a six-year statute of limitations, and the claims are governed by the three-year statute of limitations; applying the three-year statute, the claims here are time-barred.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.