Banking - Justia Case Law Summaries

Voutsiotis v. PNC Bank, NA

2026-06-08T11:02:25-08:00

An individual named Antonas established investment entities and solicited funds from members of his community, ultimately losing much of the invested money and covering up losses through fraudulent means. After Antonas’s actions came to light, and following his death by suicide, a group of investors initiated several lawsuits against various parties, including Antonas’s estate, other investors, a brokerage firm, and, in this particular action, a bank (PNC) and one of its employees (Koutrodimos), alleging that the bank and its employee facilitated or failed to prevent Antonas’s fraud. The case was originally filed in an Ohio state court, but PNC removed it to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, asserting that the non-diverse defendant (Koutrodimos) had been fraudulently joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction. The district court agreed, dismissed Koutrodimos from the lawsuit, denied the plaintiffs’ motion to remand to state court, and subsequently granted PNC’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The plaintiffs appealed these decisions. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings de novo where appropriate. The court held that the plaintiffs had no colorable claim against the non-diverse PNC employee because the complaint failed to allege specific fraudulent acts, did not establish a duty of disclosure under Ohio law, and included causes of action (such as aiding and abetting fraud) not recognized under Ohio law. Regarding PNC, the court found that the Ohio Uniform Fiduciary Act barred the claims, as the complaint did not plausibly allege PNC’s actual knowledge or bad faith in connection with Antonas’s misconduct. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of remand and dismissal of all claims against both defendants. View "Voutsiotis v. PNC Bank, NA" on Justia Law

Banco San Juan Internacional, Inc. v. Fed. Rsrv. Bank of N.Y., Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Rsrv.

2026-05-13T07:00:09-08:00

A Puerto Rican international banking entity, which operated under an offshore charter and was regulated by Puerto Rico’s Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions, maintained a master account with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In 2019, following a federal investigation into potential anti-money laundering violations involving a Venezuelan client, the entity’s offices were raided and its account was temporarily suspended. After the investigation concluded with a fine and compliance improvements, the account was restored under stricter risk-mitigation terms. However, in 2022 and 2023, the Federal Reserve Bank determined the entity had not met required compliance standards and ultimately terminated the master account, citing serious risk concerns related to money laundering and deficiencies in compliance programs. The entity sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking to compel reinstatement of its account and damages. It claimed a statutory entitlement to a master account under the Federal Reserve Act, as amended by the Monetary Control Act, and brought claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, Mandamus Act, Declaratory Judgment Act, the Fifth Amendment, and New York contract law, among others. The district court denied preliminary relief and dismissed all claims, holding that the relevant statutes did not create a nondiscretionary entitlement to a master account and finding failures in both standing and the plausibility of the claims. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. It held that the Federal Reserve Act does not grant depository institutions a statutory or nondiscretionary right to a master account; instead, regional Reserve Banks retain discretion over account access. The court further found that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, failed to plausibly allege contract or constitutional claims, and that amendment of the complaint would be futile. The district court’s judgment was affirmed in all respects. View "Banco San Juan Internacional, Inc. v. Fed. Rsrv. Bank of N.Y., Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Rsrv." on Justia Law

First Security Bank v. Richmond

2026-04-23T23:07:30-08:00

Robert Crawford was admitted to a hospital in August 2018 in critical condition. The next day, his daughter Carol obtained a general power of attorney (POA) allegedly signed by Robert and notarized by Lindsay, though Robert’s condition raised questions about the validity of the POA. Carol attempted to use the POA to access Robert’s bank accounts; one bank and a hospital refused to honor it, but First Security Bank (FSB) allowed significant withdrawals, despite having prior instructions from Robert to prohibit such transactions unless he appeared in person. Robert died intestate in September 2018, and Dasie Mae Richmond was appointed administratrix of his estate. Dasie filed suit in the Quitman County Chancery Court in August 2021 against FSB, Carol, and Lindsay, alleging improper procurement of the POA, conversion, conspiracy, negligence, and breach of contract. After initial discovery, proceedings were stayed due to Carol’s indictment and plea related to exploitation of a vulnerable person. Lindsay filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied. Later, Lindsay moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b), with FSB and Carol joining. The chancery court granted dismissal as to Lindsay only, citing ongoing restitution by Carol and unresolved issues with FSB, but denied the motion as to FSB and Carol. The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed only FSB’s appeal of the denial of dismissal. The Court held that the facts justifying dismissal for Lindsay applied equally to FSB and found no sound basis in the record for treating FSB differently. The Supreme Court of Mississippi concluded that the chancery court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 41(b) dismissal as to FSB. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and rendered judgment dismissing the claims against FSB. View "First Security Bank v. Richmond" on Justia Law

LaPadula v. Citizens Financial Group, Inc.

2026-04-15T08:20:10-08:00

The plaintiff, an individual residing overseas, alleged that his longstanding debit card account with the defendant bank was improperly deactivated on multiple occasions, including after a series of withdrawals he used to pay rent in Mauritius. He claimed that the bank’s customer service was difficult to navigate and that the deactivation caused him mental anguish and damages. He sought damages and injunctive relief, asserting the bank had a duty to restore his access and protect against fraud without jeopardizing customers. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint in the Kent County Superior Court. The plaintiff, who was self-represented, filed a motion seeking permission to appear remotely by WebEx for the hearing on the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The Superior Court docket indicated that his motion to appear remotely was not scheduled because he did not request a hearing date. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, identifying the docket entry regarding his unscheduled motion as the order appealed from. After this, the Superior Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the plaintiff’s appeal, which focused on the denial of his motion to appear remotely and broader challenges to the Superior Court’s in-person appearance requirements. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was procedurally improper because the plaintiff did not appeal from an appealable final judgment, order, or decree, but rather from a non-appealable docket entry. The Court therefore denied and dismissed the appeal, and the case may be remanded to the Superior Court. The Court also noted that the discretion to permit remote appearances lies with the trial justice under the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. View "LaPadula v. Citizens Financial Group, Inc." on Justia Law

Y.P. v. Wells Fargo Co.

2026-04-09T12:32:12-08:00

An attorney operating a sole proprietorship law firm was targeted by a check fraud scheme. A purported client sent the attorney a cashier’s check for nearly $100,000, which the attorney deposited into his Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA) at a major bank. After being instructed by the client, the attorney contacted the bank to confirm the legitimacy of the check. A bank employee repeatedly assured the attorney that the check had “cleared” and was “good to go,” both over the phone and in person, despite the attorney’s expressed concerns about possible fraud. Relying on these assurances, the attorney completed a wire transfer of most of the check’s funds as directed by the client. The next day, the bank notified the attorney that the check was fraudulent, charged back the entire amount to his account, and refused to reimburse his loss. The attorney filed suit in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, alleging breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. The bank and its employee demurred to the complaint. The trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend, and judgment was entered in favor of the bank and the employee. On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the sufficiency of the complaint. The court held that the attorney sufficiently stated a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, finding that he adequately alleged the bank employee represented the check was genuine without a reasonable basis. However, the court affirmed dismissal of the breach of contract, implied covenant, and negligent hiring claims, concluding the complaint failed to state those causes of action and that amendment would not cure the defects. The judgment of dismissal was reversed in part and affirmed in part. View "Y.P. v. Wells Fargo Co." on Justia Law

Powell v. Ocwen Fin. Corp.

2026-03-26T06:30:05-08:00

The trustees of an ERISA-regulated pension plan invested in six classes of residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBSs). Three of these investments were in notes issued by Delaware statutory trusts via indenture agreements, while the other three were in regular-interest certificates issued by trusts governed under New York law and classified as REMICs for tax purposes. The trustees alleged that the mortgage servicers mismanaged the loans and engaged in self-dealing, violating ERISA fiduciary duties. They also claimed that Wells Fargo, as master servicer for some trusts, failed to adequately supervise Ocwen (another servicer) and failed to pursue litigation on behalf of the trusts. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, holding that, under the Department of Labor’s regulation, only the RMBSs themselves—not the underlying mortgages—were plan assets for ERISA purposes. The court determined that both the notes and the regular-interest certificates were treated as indebtedness without substantial equity features, so the look-through exception did not apply. The trustees’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment was denied. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The court agreed that the notes issued by the indenture trusts lacked substantial equity features and thus the underlying mortgages were not plan assets. However, it held that the regular-interest certificates represented beneficial interests in the REMIC trusts; under the controlling regulation, the assets of such a trust in which a plan holds a beneficial interest are themselves plan assets. The case was remanded to the district court to consider whether Ocwen acted as an ERISA fiduciary with respect to the mortgages underlying the REMIC trusts. View "Powell v. Ocwen Fin. Corp." on Justia Law

Cin Dale 3 v. Peoples Bank Corp.

2026-03-09T10:30:21-08:00

A plaintiff obtained a default judgment in Texas state court against Hugh D. Dale, Jr. and two companies he controlled. To enforce the judgment, the plaintiff registered it in West Virginia, where the Circuit Court of Calhoun County issued writs of execution and approved a process known as “suggestion” to identify assets belonging to the judgment debtors. Peoples Bank, which held several accounts listing the judgment debtors as co-owners along with various partnerships, was notified and, pursuant to statutory procedure, debited the accounts and sent the funds to the judgment creditor. The partnerships, also named on the accounts, claimed the funds belonged exclusively to them and not to Dale or his companies. The partnerships filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia against Peoples Bank and its employees, alleging negligence and conversion. The district court dismissed the negligence claim as untimely and the conversion claim as implausible, concluding the bank had merely complied with the statutory mechanism for judgment enforcement. The partnerships appealed only the dismissal of the conversion claim. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the conversion claim de novo. It held that Peoples Bank’s actions were authorized by West Virginia law, specifically West Virginia Code § 38-5-14, which allows a bank to turn over property belonging to a judgment debtor upon receipt of a suggestion and provides immunity from liability for doing so. The court found no wrongful exercise of dominion by the bank, as required for conversion, and rejected arguments that the bank acted improperly by not affording the partnerships or Dale prior notice. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the conversion claim. View "Cin Dale 3 v. Peoples Bank Corp." on Justia Law

USA v. Page

2025-12-10T13:31:51-08:00

Two brothers sought multimillion-dollar loans from a bank to fund oil and gas investments. Because the bank required collateral, one brother arranged for a third party to create fraudulent documents making it appear that a securities account was worth millions. The brothers paid the third party for these fake statements, and, over several years, borrowed millions from the bank. They used some of the loan proceeds for improper purposes, including personal expenses and paying for the fake account statements. The bank eventually discovered the fraud after questioning the third party, who confessed and cooperated with the government, leading to indictments for conspiracy to commit bank fraud and money laundering. Prior to trial, the case was assigned to a district judge who had previously represented the victim bank in unrelated civil matters. One brother pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud before trial, while the other, Phillip, went to trial. The district court denied motions to dismiss the indictment, sever the defendants, and for the judge’s recusal. It also admitted certain evidence and denied several of Phillip’s proposed jury instructions. After a jury found Phillip guilty on all counts, he was sentenced to concurrent prison terms and supervised release. He appealed, raising issues related to the judge’s recusal, evidentiary rulings, prosecutorial delay, instructions, and sufficiency of the evidence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district judge was not required to recuse himself due to his prior, unrelated representation of the bank. The court found no reversible error in the handling of co-conspirators’ pleas or other evidentiary rulings, found no grounds for dismissal due to prosecutorial delay, and held that the jury instructions were adequate. The court also found the evidence sufficient to support the convictions and rejected the cumulative error argument. The convictions were affirmed. View "USA v. Page" on Justia Law

National Association of Industrial Bankers v. Weiser

2025-11-10T13:32:04-08:00

Three trade associations representing state-chartered banks challenged Colorado’s decision to opt out of a federal law, the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDA), which sets national standards for interest rates that state banks may charge. In 2023, Colorado exercised its opt-out right under DIDA and announced it would enforce its own interest-rate caps on loans made to Colorado borrowers, including those made by out-of-state banks. The trade associations argued that Colorado’s opt-out should only apply to loans made by banks physically located in Colorado, not to loans made by out-of-state banks to Colorado residents. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado agreed with the trade associations. It granted a preliminary injunction preventing Colorado officials from enforcing the state’s interest-rate caps against out-of-state banks making loans to Colorado borrowers. The district court found that the plaintiffs had a viable cause of action under Ex parte Young, were likely to succeed on the merits, and would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction. The court also determined that the balance of equities and public interest favored the plaintiffs. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision. The Tenth Circuit held that the phrase “loans made in such State” in DIDA’s opt-out provision refers to loans in which either the lender or the borrower is located in the opt-out state. Therefore, Colorado’s opt-out applies to loans made by out-of-state banks to Colorado borrowers, and DIDA no longer preempts Colorado’s interest-rate caps for those loans. The Tenth Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction, finding that the district court erred in its interpretation of the statute and that the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "National Association of Industrial Bankers v. Weiser" on Justia Law

Custodia Bank v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors

2025-10-31T08:33:16-08:00

Custodia Bank, a Wyoming-chartered, nonmember bank with a business model focused on digital assets, applied for a master account with the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (FRBKC). Although FRBKC acknowledged Custodia’s statutory eligibility for such an account, it ultimately denied the application, citing concerns that Custodia’s crypto-focused operations posed undue risk to the Federal Reserve’s payment systems. Custodia then filed suit against both FRBKC and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, arguing that federal law required the Federal Reserve to grant master account access to all eligible institutions, regardless of risk. The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming initially allowed Custodia’s statutory entitlement claims to proceed, while dismissing constitutional claims. After FRBKC formally denied Custodia’s application, Custodia amended its complaint to focus on statutory entitlement under the Monetary Control Act and related statutes. Following discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the relevant statutes did not create a nondiscretionary duty to grant master accounts to all eligible applicants. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment de novo. The Tenth Circuit held that the plain language of the Federal Reserve Act and the Monetary Control Act grants Federal Reserve Banks discretion to approve or deny master account applications from eligible entities. The court found that neither the statutes nor subsequent amendments mandated automatic access for all qualifying institutions. The court also affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Custodia’s claims against the Board for lack of final agency action. Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. View "Custodia Bank v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors" on Justia Law

USA v. Ryan

2025-10-17T09:30:58-08:00

The case concerns the former President and CEO of a New Orleans-based commercial bank, who was charged with conspiracy to commit bank fraud, bank fraud, and making false entries in bank records. The evidence at trial showed that he, along with other bank employees and borrowers, engaged in a scheme to misrepresent the creditworthiness of certain borrowers. This allowed the bank to issue loans to insolvent individuals, who then used the proceeds to pay off overdue and overdraft loans, thereby concealing the true financial state of the bank’s loan portfolio. The defendant did not dispute the existence of these loans but argued that he lacked the intent to defraud the bank. After the bank failed in 2017, resulting in significant losses to the FDIC, a federal grand jury indicted the defendant and several co-conspirators. Some co-defendants pleaded guilty, while the defendant proceeded to trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The jury found him guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to 170 months in prison and ordered to pay substantial restitution. The district court denied his post-trial motions for acquittal, arrest of judgment, and a new trial. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions, the admission of lay and summary testimony, and the denial of a motion to dismiss based on the government’s handling of privileged emails. The Fifth Circuit held that the evidence was sufficient to support all convictions, the jury instructions were proper and tracked the relevant law, the evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of discretion, and the government’s conduct regarding privileged material did not warrant dismissal. The court affirmed the jury’s verdict in full. View "USA v. Ryan" on Justia Law

KIVETT V. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB

2025-10-02T08:00:33-08:00

A group of borrowers in California brought a class action against Flagstar Bank, alleging that the bank failed to pay interest on their mortgage escrow accounts as required by California Civil Code § 2954.8(a). Flagstar did not pay interest on these accounts, arguing that the National Bank Act (NBA) preempted the California law, and therefore, it was not obligated to comply. The plaintiffs sought restitution for the unpaid interest. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, relying on the Ninth Circuit’s prior decision in Lusnak v. Bank of America, N.A., granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs. The court ordered Flagstar to pay restitution and prejudgment interest to the class. Flagstar appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that Lusnak foreclosed Flagstar’s preemption argument. However, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to correct the class definition date and the judgment amount due to errors in the statute of limitations tolling and calculation of damages. On remand from the United States Supreme Court, following its decision in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., the Ninth Circuit reviewed whether it could overrule Lusnak in light of Cantero. The court held that Cantero did not render Lusnak “clearly irreconcilable” with Supreme Court precedent, and therefore, the panel lacked authority to overrule Lusnak. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that the NBA does not preempt California’s interest-on-escrow law, but vacated and remanded the judgment and class certification order for modification of the class definition date and judgment amount. View "KIVETT V. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB" on Justia Law

Conti v. Citizens Bank, N.A.

2025-09-22T12:30:03-08:00

A borrower in Rhode Island financed a home purchase with a mortgage from a national bank. The mortgage required the borrower to make advance payments for property taxes and insurance into an escrow account managed by the bank. The bank did not pay interest on these escrowed funds, despite a Rhode Island statute mandating that banks pay interest on such accounts. Years later, the borrower filed a class action lawsuit against the bank, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment for failing to pay the required interest under state law. The United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island dismissed the complaint, agreeing with the bank that the National Bank Act preempted the Rhode Island statute. The court reasoned that the state law imposed limits on the bank’s federal powers, specifically the power to establish escrow accounts, and thus significantly interfered with the bank’s incidental powers under federal law. The court did not address class certification or the merits of the unjust enrichment claim, focusing solely on preemption. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case after the Supreme Court’s decision in Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., which clarified the standard for preemption under the National Bank Act. The First Circuit held that the district court erred by not applying the nuanced, comparative analysis required by Cantero. The appellate court found that the bank failed to show that the Rhode Island statute significantly interfered with its federal banking powers or conflicted with the federal regulatory scheme. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing the borrower’s claims to proceed. View "Conti v. Citizens Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Minnesota Bankers Assoc. v. FDIC

2025-09-17T07:30:28-08:00

The plaintiffs, two banking organizations, challenged a guidance document issued by a federal agency that oversees insured banks. The guidance, known as FIL 32, addresses the practice of charging multiple non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees when a single transaction is presented for payment more than once. The guidance warns that such practices may pose a risk of being considered unfair or deceptive under federal law, particularly if customers are not adequately informed or given an opportunity to avoid additional fees. The plaintiffs argued that this guidance effectively acts as a binding regulation, requiring compliance measures and increasing their risk of enforcement, and that it was issued without following required rulemaking procedures. The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed the case, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the guidance. The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were not redressable and that the guidance did not constitute a final agency action subject to judicial review. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, but on the alternative ground that the plaintiffs’ claims were not ripe for judicial review. The appellate court held that the guidance was not a final agency action because it did not impose binding obligations or legal consequences, nor did it compel the banks to take or refrain from specific actions. The court found that the guidance merely outlined supervisory expectations and risk-mitigation practices, without creating enforceable rules or safe harbors. The court also determined that withholding judicial review would not cause significant hardship to the plaintiffs, as the enforcement risk existed independently of the guidance. Accordingly, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Minnesota Bankers Assoc. v. FDIC" on Justia Law

Ortega v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

2025-09-08T15:30:36-08:00

Two former officers and directors of a Texas community bank faced regulatory action after the bank failed in 2013 following significant losses during the 2008 financial crisis. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) alleged that the individuals engaged in unsafe and unsound banking practices, breached fiduciary duties, and filed materially inaccurate reports. The OCC’s claims centered on three main strategies: the bank’s practice of making loans to finance purchases of its holding company’s stock (which were then counted as capital), aggressive and risky sales of real estate owned by the bank, and improper accounting for nonaccrual loans. These actions allegedly overstated the bank’s capital and masked its true financial condition, ultimately resulting in substantial losses. After the OCC initiated an enforcement action in 2017, the matter was reassigned to a new Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) following the Supreme Court’s decision in Lucia v. SEC. The new ALJ ratified prior rulings, conducted a hearing, and issued a recommendation. The Comptroller adopted most of the ALJ’s findings but imposed industry bans and civil penalties on both petitioners, concluding that their conduct warranted prohibition from banking and monetary sanctions. The petitioners then sought review from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit denied the petition for review. The court held that the OCC’s enforcement action fell within the public rights doctrine, so the petitioners were not entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. The court also found that the ALJ’s appointment was constitutionally valid, the enforcement action was timely under the applicable statute of limitations, and the agency’s evidentiary and procedural rulings were supported by substantial evidence. The court further upheld the Comptroller’s decision to impose prohibition orders and civil penalties, finding the preponderance of the evidence standard appropriate for such administrative proceedings. View "Ortega v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency" on Justia Law

Burgess v. Whang

2025-08-26T04:01:49-08:00

Cornelius Burgess, the former CEO of Herring Bank, was the subject of a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) enforcement action that began with an investigation in 2010 and formal proceedings in 2014. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended in 2017 that Burgess be removed from his position, barred from the banking industry, and fined $200,000. The FDIC Board adopted this recommendation, but the enforcement order was stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Lucia v. SEC, which addressed the constitutionality of ALJ appointments. After Lucia, the case was remanded for a new hearing before a properly appointed ALJ, who again recommended the same sanctions in 2022. Before the FDIC Board could issue its final order, Burgess filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking to enjoin the Board from issuing its decision on constitutional grounds. The district court found it had jurisdiction to hear Burgess’s claims despite 12 U.S.C. § 1818(i)(1), which generally precludes such jurisdiction. The court denied injunctive relief on Burgess’s claims regarding unconstitutional removal protections for the Board and ALJs, finding he had not shown harm from those provisions. However, it granted an injunction based on his Seventh Amendment claim, concluding he was likely to succeed on the merits and that the other factors for injunctive relief were met. The FDIC appealed the injunction, and Burgess cross-appealed the denial of relief on his removal claims. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that 12 U.S.C. § 1818(i)(1) explicitly strips district courts of subject matter jurisdiction to enjoin or otherwise affect the issuance or enforcement of FDIC orders, including on constitutional grounds. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of injunctive relief and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, declining to reach the merits of Burgess’s constitutional claims. View "Burgess v. Whang" on Justia Law

Huntington Natl. Bank v. Schneider

2025-08-20T05:13:15-08:00

A business owner, who held a 50% stake in a group of skilled-nursing and real estate companies, personally guaranteed a $77 million loan arranged by a bank for those companies and others managed by his business partner. The loan was part of a refinancing effort after the companies’ prior lender declared a default. The owner signed both an initial guaranty agreement and a subsequent reaffirmation of that guaranty. Within a year, the companies defaulted on the new loan, and it was later revealed that the business partner had engaged in fraudulent check-kiting. The bank demanded repayment from the guarantors, including the owner, who then argued that he had been fraudulently induced into signing the guaranty because the bank failed to disclose material financial risks related to his partner and the companies. The Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment to the bank, finding that the owner had waived defenses under the guaranty agreement, that the bank owed no duty to disclose information about the companies’ financial condition, and that the owner could not establish fraudulent inducement. On appeal, the First District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that as a surety, the owner could assert a defense based on the bank’s alleged failure to disclose facts that materially increased his risk, adopting the “doctrine of increased risk” from Section 124(1) of the Restatement (First) of Security. The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and reversed the appellate court’s decision. The court held that, under Ohio law, parties to an arm’s-length transaction do not owe each other a duty to disclose unknown facts that materially increase risk, unless a special relationship of trust or confidence exists. This rule applies regardless of whether one party is a guarantor or surety. The court reinstated the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the bank. View "Huntington Natl. Bank v. Schneider" on Justia Law

United States v. Buchanan

2025-08-12T12:31:17-08:00

Law enforcement officers in Baldwin County, Alabama, stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation and discovered three occupants: Timothy Buchanan, Jaleeshia Robinson, and Tyre Crawford. A search of the vehicle revealed forged and stolen identification cards, credit cards, and checks, as well as equipment for producing counterfeit checks. Buchanan admitted to cashing fraudulent checks using stolen or forged identification, and evidence showed he was in frequent communication with his co-defendants about the scheme. Robinson, who cooperated with the government, testified that Buchanan’s role was to cash checks, while she and Crawford created the fraudulent documents and stole checks from mailboxes. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama presided over Buchanan’s jury trial. The jury acquitted him of one count of aggravated identity theft but convicted him on conspiracy to commit bank fraud, possession of five or more identification documents with intent to use or transfer, possession of counterfeited or forged securities, a second count of aggravated identity theft, and possession of stolen mail. The district court sentenced Buchanan to 116 months’ imprisonment and ordered restitution. Buchanan challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for several convictions, the application of a sentencing enhancement for sophisticated means, and the calculation of restitution. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed Buchanan’s convictions, holding that sufficient evidence supported his convictions under an aiding and abetting theory, and that his aggravated identity theft conviction was not plainly erroneous under Dubin v. United States, 599 U.S. 110 (2023), because the use of another’s identification was central to the predicate offense. However, the court vacated the sentence in part, finding error in the application of the sophisticated means enhancement and in the restitution calculation, and remanded for further proceedings on those issues. View "United States v. Buchanan" on Justia Law

Grice v. Independent Bank

2025-08-05T10:30:26-08:00

A South Carolina resident brought a lawsuit in federal court against a Michigan-based bank, alleging that the bank engaged in three improper practices related to overdraft and ATM fees. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed the bank assessed overdraft fees even when accounts had sufficient funds, charged multiple insufficient-funds fees for a single transaction, and imposed two out-of-network fees for a single ATM withdrawal. The plaintiff sought to certify nationwide classes for each alleged wrongful fee practice. The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina denied the plaintiff’s motion for class certification. The court relied on South Carolina’s “Door Closing Statute” (S.C. Code Ann. § 15-5-150), as interpreted by the Supreme Court of South Carolina in Farmer v. Monsanto Corp., to conclude that nonresidents whose claims did not arise in South Carolina could not be included in the class. As a result, the court found that the plaintiff could not satisfy the numerosity requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and denied class certification. The plaintiff appealed this decision under Rule 23(f), and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted review. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Co., directly conflicts with the Door Closing Statute’s additional requirements for class actions. The Fourth Circuit concluded that Rule 23 alone governs the certification of class actions in federal court and that the Door Closing Statute cannot limit class membership in this context. The court reversed the district court’s denial of class certification and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Grice v. Independent Bank" on Justia Law

KING V. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION

2025-08-01T08:01:33-08:00

Andrew King, a customer of Navy Federal Credit Union (NFCU), was charged a $15 returned-check fee despite not being at fault for the check's failure to clear. King argued that this fee constituted an "unfair" and "unlawful" business practice under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and violated the federal Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA). He filed a lawsuit in state court, which NFCU removed to federal court. The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed King's state law claims, ruling that they were preempted by federal law. Specifically, the court found that 12 C.F.R. § 701.35(c), which governs federal credit unions, expressly preempted King's UCL claim. The court concluded that state laws regulating account fees are not applicable to federal credit unions, and thus, King's claim was preempted. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that the plain language of 12 C.F.R. § 701.35(c) expressly preempts state laws regulating account fees for federal credit unions. The court rejected King's arguments that the UCL transcends the preemption clause, stating that all state laws regulating account fees, whether general or specific, have no application to federal credit unions. The court emphasized that the regulation's preemption clause operates independently of whether a fee complies with federal law. Thus, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss King's UCL claim on preemption grounds. View "KING V. NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION" on Justia Law

Wildman v. Deutsche Bank

2025-07-21T06:30:09-08:00

Plaintiffs, American service members and civilians injured or killed in terrorist attacks in Afghanistan, along with their family members, sued Deutsche Bank, Standard Chartered Bank (SCB), and Danske Bank under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) as amended by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). They alleged that the banks aided and abetted terrorist organizations by providing banking services to customers involved in tax fraud and money laundering schemes, with proceeds allegedly funding terrorist activities. Plaintiffs also claimed SCB aided the attacks by providing banking services to fertilizer companies whose products were used to make bombs. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed the plaintiffs' amended complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim. The court found that the plaintiffs did not establish a sufficient nexus between the banks' actions and the terrorist acts that caused their injuries. The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, concluding that further amendment would be futile. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court applied the Supreme Court's decision in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, which clarified the pleading standard for aiding-and-abetting claims under JASTA. The court held that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege that the banks were generally aware of their role in the terrorist activities or that they provided knowing and substantial assistance to the terrorist organizations. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs' allegations were too attenuated and speculative to support a claim of aiding-and-abetting liability under JASTA. View "Wildman v. Deutsche Bank" on Justia Law

Henderson State Co. v. Garrelts

2025-07-18T05:20:50-08:00

A bank holding company sued two guarantors for breach of their personal guaranties on a $1.5 million loan extended to an entity they were involved with. The guarantors argued that the bank holding company lacked standing to sue because there was no written assignment of the loan documents from the original lender, a bank, to the holding company. The district court admitted the written assignment into evidence and found that the holding company had standing. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of the holding company, finding the guarantors liable under the terms of their guaranties. The guarantors had counterclaimed against the holding company and other parties, alleging fraudulent concealment, fraudulent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. They argued that the bank and its president conspired with a now-deceased individual to conceal the financial instability of the individual’s entities, which led to the guarantors entering into the guaranties. The district court found no genuine issue of material fact regarding these counterclaims and granted summary judgment for the holding company. The guarantors also attempted to file a document in which the personal representative of the deceased individual’s estate confessed judgment against the estate. The district court ruled this filing a nullity, as the personal representative’s appointment had been terminated before the filing, and he was not authorized to act on behalf of the estate. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s rulings, holding that the holding company had standing, the guarantors were liable under the guaranties, and the counterclaims were unsupported by evidence. The court also upheld the ruling that the purported confession of judgment was a nullity. View "Henderson State Co. v. Garrelts" on Justia Law

Veljovic v. TD Bank, N.A.

2025-07-11T06:25:59-08:00

The plaintiff, Aleksandra Veljovic, filed a lawsuit against TD Bank, N.A. and its former employee, Zlata Cavka, alleging negligence, negligent supervision, and respondeat superior. Veljovic claimed that Cavka negligently notarized a fraudulent document used by her ex-husband to secure a divorce order in Serbia, which resulted in the loss of her marital property. Veljovic argued that TD Bank should be held liable for Cavka's actions. The Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division, dismissed Veljovic's complaint with prejudice, concluding that she could not recover for purely economic losses and failed to demonstrate a special relationship between the parties. The court also denied her post-judgment request to amend her complaint. TD Bank moved to dismiss the complaint under Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Veljovic's claims were barred by the economic-loss rule, that neither TD Bank nor Cavka owed her an independent duty of care, and that she failed to plead facts establishing necessary causation. The court granted the motion, finding that Veljovic sought compensation solely for economic losses and did not establish a special relationship with the defendants. The court also dismissed the claims against Cavka after Veljovic failed to respond to a show-cause order. Veljovic appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint and denying her motion to amend. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, agreeing that Veljovic did not allege sufficient facts to show a special relationship with the defendants and that her claims were barred by the economic-loss rule. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying her motion to amend the complaint, as the proposed amendments would not have established a special relationship or overcome the economic-loss rule. View "Veljovic v. TD Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Ex parte GBC International Bank

2025-06-27T06:00:04-08:00

Michael Straus wired $60,000 to an account at GBC International Bank (GBC) owned by Apex Oil and Gas Trading, LLC (Apex). Apex allegedly failed to provide the services Straus paid for, withdrew the funds, and disappeared. Straus sued GBC in May 2024, claiming negligence and wantonness, alleging GBC closed Apex's account knowing Apex was engaged in fraud. Straus argued GBC's website acknowledged its obligations under the Patriot Act to prevent such fraud. The Jefferson Circuit Court denied GBC's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. GBC then petitioned the Supreme Court of Alabama for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to dismiss the case. The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed the case de novo. GBC argued it had no general or specific personal jurisdiction in Alabama, supported by an affidavit from its executive vice president and chief financial officer, Richard Holmes. Holmes stated GBC had no business operations, property, or targeted advertising in Alabama. Straus's response included an unsworn declaration, which the court found insufficient to establish jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Alabama held that Straus's unilateral action of wiring money to GBC did not establish specific personal jurisdiction. GBC's general statements on its website about compliance with federal law did not constitute purposeful availment of conducting activities in Alabama. The court concluded that GBC did not have the minimum contacts necessary to subject it to personal jurisdiction in Alabama. Therefore, the court granted GBC's petition and directed the circuit court to dismiss Straus's complaint. View "Ex parte GBC International Bank" on Justia Law

Knudsen v. U. of M.

2025-06-17T13:55:08-08:00

Former students of the University of Montana filed a class action lawsuit against the university, alleging mishandling of student loan reimbursement payments. They claimed that the university's contract with Higher One Holdings, Inc. subjected them to excessive bank fees and unlawfully disclosed their personal information without consent. The university had contracted with Higher One from 2010 to 2015 to process student loan reimbursements, which involved issuing debit cards and charging various fees. The District Court of the Fourth Judicial District in Missoula County certified three classes of plaintiffs but was later partially reversed by the Montana Supreme Court, which upheld the certification of two classes and reversed the third. The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury found in favor of the university, concluding that it did not breach its fiduciary duty, violate privacy rights, or unjustly enrich itself. The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case on appeal. The students raised several issues, including the admissibility of evidence regarding their banking practices, the testimony of the university's expert witness, the university's closing arguments, the admission of a fee comparison chart, and the refusal of a burden-shifting jury instruction. The court found that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings, including allowing the university to present evidence about students' banking practices and admitting the fee comparison chart. The court also held that the expert witness's testimony was permissible and that the university's closing arguments did not prejudice the students' right to a fair trial. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the District Court's judgment in favor of the University of Montana, upholding the jury's verdict. View "Knudsen v. U. of M." on Justia Law

United States v. Aceituno

2025-06-02T12:30:04-08:00

Lester Aceituno was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and two counts of aggravated identity theft. The fraudulent scheme involved using stolen identification information to open bank accounts, change addresses to rented mailboxes, deposit fraudulent checks, and withdraw funds using debit cards. Aceituno opened accounts in New Hampshire and Massachusetts using stolen identities and signed documents attesting to the accuracy of the information. He also created a mailbox using a stolen identity. The scheme was led by a man known as "Abby," who provided the stolen information. The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire denied Aceituno's Rule 29 motion, which argued insufficient evidence to prove he knew he was using real persons' identifying information. The court also rejected his claim of prosecutorial misconduct during the government's closing argument and rebuttal. Aceituno was sentenced to 30 months in prison. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding that Aceituno knew the identification information belonged to real people. The evidence included Aceituno's repeated use of stolen identities, the bank's verification process, and testimony from a co-conspirator. The court also found that the prosecution's statements during closing arguments were fair inferences from the evidence and did not constitute misconduct. The court affirmed Aceituno's conviction. View "United States v. Aceituno" on Justia Law

AMERICAN PEARL GROUP, L.L.C. v. NATIONAL PAYMENT SYSTEMS, L.L.C.

2025-05-23T06:14:26-08:00

American Pearl Group, L.L.C., John Sarkissian, and Andrei Wirth (collectively, “Pearl”) and National Payment Systems, L.L.C. (“NPS”) operate in the credit-card-payment-processing industry. In May 2019, NPS loaned $375,100.85 to Pearl, to be repaid with interest over forty-two months. The Loan Agreement required Pearl to pay back $684,966.76, with a schedule allocating each month’s payment between principal and interest. Pearl sued NPS in March 2022, seeking a declaration that the Loan and Option Agreement violated Texas usury law. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted NPS’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the scheduled interest payments were not usurious under the “spreading doctrine,” the purchase option’s value was too uncertain to constitute interest, and Pearl had not adequately alleged a scheme to conceal usury. The district court calculated the interest by spreading it over the term of the loan in equal parts, finding no usury violation. Pearl appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing that the district court erred by applying the “equal parts” method instead of the actuarial method required by Section 306.004(a) of the Texas Finance Code. The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that Section 306.004(a) requires courts to calculate the maximum permissible interest based on the declining principal balance for each payment period, using the actuarial method. The court emphasized that the Legislature’s deliberate choice of words in the statute matters, and the actuarial method calls for interest amounts to be calculated for each payment period based on the declining principal balance. The court answered the Fifth Circuit’s certified question affirmatively, clarifying that the interest calculations must be based on the declining principal balance when periodic principal payments are provided during the loan term. View "AMERICAN PEARL GROUP, L.L.C. v. NATIONAL PAYMENT SYSTEMS, L.L.C." on Justia Law

In The Matter of The Estate Tatum

2025-05-23T01:24:26-08:00

William H. Tatum Jr. was convicted of bank fraud and had a $15,284,348 restitution judgment against him. He owned a 50% membership interest in Tatum Land and Cattle Company, LLC (TLCC). Upon his death in 2018, his estate, including his TLCC interest, was left to his wife, Betsy Gay Roberts-Tatum. Betsy died in 2020, and her son, Zachary I. Haynie, became the executor of her estate. Darrell Tatum, William’s grandson, was appointed executor of William’s estate. The United States, Peoples Bank, and John Deere Financial filed claims against William’s estate. The Tippah County Chancery Court admitted William’s will to probate and appointed Gay as executrix. After Gay’s death, Darrell was appointed as successor executor. Darrell petitioned for the public sale of William’s TLCC interest to satisfy estate debts. Zach opposed, seeking to enforce the TLCC operating agreement’s buyout provision. The chancellor ordered the public sale, which resulted in Joe Tatum purchasing the interest for $675,000. Zach objected, arguing the sale price was inadequate and sought relief, including assignment of the promissory note and deed of trust from Peoples Bank. The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case. The court found that any additional funds recovered from the estate would go to the United States due to the restitution judgment, rendering Zach’s claims moot. The court dismissed the appeal as moot, noting that a decision would not benefit Zach practically since the United States would claim any additional funds. The court affirmed the chancellor’s decisions, including the public sale and denial of Zach’s motions. View "In The Matter of The Estate Tatum" on Justia Law

THE STATE OF TEXAS v. THREE THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY-FOUR DOLLARS AND TWENTY-EIGHT CENTS U.S. CURRENCY ($3,774.28)

2025-05-16T06:14:24-08:00

Oljine Noguez and Manuel Zepeda Mendoza were investigated for their alleged involvement in an opioid trafficking operation. Following the investigation, the State of Texas seized their bank accounts and cash, initiating four civil-forfeiture actions. The State alleged that the funds were contraband related to the trafficking operation, attaching a sworn declaration and affidavit from the investigating officer, Bryan Bacon, to each notice of seizure. Nearly two years later, the Claimants filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, arguing that the State had no evidence to support its claims. The State responded but did not attach any exhibits, instead referencing Officer Bacon’s affidavit. The trial court considered the motion and granted summary judgment for the Claimants, noting that the State did not attach the affidavit to its response. The State then filed a motion for leave to file a response with the affidavit attached, which the trial court denied, finalizing its order granting summary judgment to the Claimants. The State appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the State failed to meet its burden by not attaching the affidavit and not sufficiently directing the trial court to specific portions of the affidavit. The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and held that Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(i) does not require the attachment of previously filed summary judgment evidence. The Court found that the State’s response sufficiently pointed out and discussed the evidence, reversing the Court of Appeals’ judgment. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, instructing the trial court to reconsider the no-evidence motion in light of the opinion that previously filed evidence referenced in a response can be considered without being attached. View "THE STATE OF TEXAS v. THREE THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY-FOUR DOLLARS AND TWENTY-EIGHT CENTS U.S. CURRENCY ($3,774.28)" on Justia Law

Dernis v United States

2025-05-01T06:00:17-08:00

George and Maria Dernis borrowed money from Premier Bank, which was involved in fraudulent lending practices. The loans were secured by mortgages on their personal real estate. After Premier Bank collapsed, the FDIC was appointed as receiver and sold some of the bank's loans, including the Dernises' loans, to Amos Financial in 2014. The Dernises claimed that the FDIC was aware of the fraudulent nature of the loans and failed to take remedial action. They filed a lawsuit against the FDIC, which was dismissed by the district court. They then filed an amended complaint against the United States under the FTCA, alleging various torts based on the FDIC's conduct. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the amended complaint, determining that most of the claims were not timely exhausted under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). The court also found that the sole timely claim was barred by the FTCA’s intentional torts exception under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(h). The court dismissed the action with prejudice and entered final judgment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that the Dernises failed to timely exhaust their administrative remedies for most of their claims. The court also held that the only timely claim was barred by the FTCA’s intentional torts exception, as it involved misrepresentation, deceit, and interference with contract rights. The court rejected the Dernises' argument that the FDIC’s "sue-and-be-sued" clause provided a broader waiver of sovereign immunity, noting that the United States was the sole defendant and the FTCA provided the exclusive remedy for tort claims against the United States. View "Dernis v United States" on Justia Law

United States v. Lucas

2025-04-18T15:30:15-08:00

William Dexter Lucas was involved in schemes to fraudulently obtain small-business loans from the government and vehicle loans from private institutions. He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud and waived his right to appeal. His presentence investigation report (PSR) included details of his fraudulent activities and mentioned allegedly fraudulent social security benefits he had been receiving. At sentencing, the district court ordered Lucas to pay restitution to both the private institutions and the Social Security Administration (SSA). Lucas appealed his sentence, challenging the restitution orders for the vehicle loans and social security benefits. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas initially handled the case. Lucas objected to the PSR's restitution calculations, arguing that the vehicle loans restitution was ordered to the wrong victim and incorrectly calculated, and that the social security benefits restitution was improper because he was entitled to the benefits and the alleged fraud was not part of the same scheme as the offenses in his indictment. The district court recalculated the vehicle loans restitution but upheld the SSA restitution, finding that Lucas's statement to the SSA was fraudulent and that the SSA fraud was part of the same conduct as the fraud alleged in the indictment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the SSA restitution was erroneous because the SSA fraud was not part of the same scheme or conspiracy as the offenses in the indictment. The court affirmed the vehicle loans restitution, finding that Lucas's challenge to the calculation was barred by his appeal waiver and that the dealerships were proper victims. The court affirmed the vehicle loans restitution but vacated the SSA restitution award. View "United States v. Lucas" on Justia Law

Hamilton Reserve Bank v. Sri Lanka

2025-04-10T06:30:07-08:00

Hamilton Reserve Bank, the beneficial owner of $250,490,000 in Sri Lankan government bonds, sued the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York after Sri Lanka defaulted on the bonds. Over a year later, Jesse Guzman, Ultimate Concrete LLC, and Intercoastal Finance Ltd. sought to intervene, claiming Hamilton defrauded them by using their deposited funds to purchase the bonds and then refusing to allow them to withdraw their money. The district court denied the motion to intervene, holding that it lacked jurisdiction over the intervenors' claims. The court found that the claims did not derive from a "common nucleus of operative fact" with Hamilton's breach of contract claim against Sri Lanka, as required for supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that the district court applied the correct "common nucleus of operative fact" standard for evaluating supplemental jurisdiction under Section 1367(a). The court concluded that the intervenors' claims, which involved a banking dispute with Hamilton, did not share substantial factual overlap with Hamilton's breach of contract claim against Sri Lanka. Therefore, the district court correctly determined it lacked jurisdiction over the intervenors' claims and denied their motion to intervene. View "Hamilton Reserve Bank v. Sri Lanka" on Justia Law

Studco Building Systems US, LLC v. 1st Advantage Federal Credit Union

2025-03-26T10:30:20-08:00

Studco Building Systems US, LLC, a metal fabricator, regularly purchased steel from Olympic Steel, Inc. and paid invoices via ACH payments. In October 2018, Studco received a fraudulent email, purportedly from Olympic, instructing it to redirect payments to a new account at 1st Advantage Federal Credit Union. Studco complied, transferring over $550,000 to the scammers' account. The scammers were never identified, and Studco bore the loss. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held a bench trial and ruled in favor of Studco, awarding it $558,868.71 plus attorney fees and costs. The court found 1st Advantage liable under Virginia Code § 8.4A-207 for failing to act in a commercially reasonable manner and for breach of bailment. The court concluded that 1st Advantage should have detected the misdescription of the account name and number. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court's judgment on the misdescription claim, holding that under Virginia Code § 8.4A-207, a bank is not liable for depositing funds into an account based on the account number provided, unless it has actual knowledge of a misdescription. The court found no evidence that 1st Advantage had actual knowledge of the misdescription. The court also reversed the judgment on the bailment claim, stating that a general deposit in a bank does not create a bailment under Virginia law. The court affirmed the district court's denial of punitive damages to Studco. The Fourth Circuit's main holding was that 1st Advantage was not liable under § 8.4A-207 because it lacked actual knowledge of the misdescription, and no bailment was created by the ACH deposits. The case was remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of 1st Advantage. View "Studco Building Systems US, LLC v. 1st Advantage Federal Credit Union" on Justia Law

Kerns v. First State Bank

2025-02-28T16:30:16-08:00

Matthew Kerns, the sole member and manager of Glade Creek Livestock, LLC, personally guaranteed a loan from First State Bank of Ben Wheeler (FSBBW) using equipment and cattle as collateral. When Glade Creek faced financial difficulties, Kerns sold some of the cattle, leading FSBBW to demand full repayment. Kerns filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and during the automatic stay, FSBBW reported the sale of the collateral to a special ranger with the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TSCRA). This led to Kerns' indictment and arrest for hindering a secured creditor. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of FSBBW, holding that FSBBW's actions fell within the safe harbor provision of the Annunzio-Wylie Money Laundering Act, which protects financial institutions from liability for reporting possible violations of law. Kerns appealed to the district court, which affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision. Kerns then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The court held that FSBBW's report to the special ranger was protected under the safe harbor provision of the Annunzio-Wylie Act, as the special ranger qualified as law enforcement under Texas law. The court also found that Kerns had forfeited his argument for the recusal of the bankruptcy judge by not raising it earlier, despite knowing the basis for recusal since 2021. The court concluded that FSBBW's conduct was shielded from liability, and the summary judgment in favor of FSBBW was affirmed. View "Kerns v. First State Bank" on Justia Law

USA v Jenkins

2025-02-14T10:31:25-08:00

The case involves Shamond Jenkins, who was convicted of robbing a Centier Bank branch in South Bend, Indiana, in December 2020. Jenkins was identified as a suspect in three robberies in northern Indiana between December 2020 and January 2021. During a traffic stop on January 8, 2021, Jenkins was found with cash, including a bait bill from the South Bend robbery, and was wearing red-and-white Air Jordan sneakers similar to those worn by the robber. Jenkins was charged with multiple counts, including the South Bend bank robbery, to which he pleaded not guilty. In the district court, Jenkins was found guilty of the South Bend bank robbery but not guilty of the Granger Centier Bank robbery. The jury could not reach a unanimous decision on the Check Into Cash robbery. Jenkins objected to the Presentence Investigation Report's recommendations, including an enhancement for obstructing justice by presenting false testimony and the inclusion of juvenile adjudications in his criminal history. The district court overruled these objections and sentenced Jenkins to 100 months in prison. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed Jenkins's appeal. Jenkins argued that the evidence was insufficient to convict him, that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated due to the face mask he had to wear during the trial, and that the district court erred in applying a sentencing enhancement for perjury and in counting his juvenile convictions. The Seventh Circuit found no error in the district court's decisions. The court held that the face mask did not render the in-court identifications unduly suggestive or violate Jenkins's confrontation rights. The court also upheld the sufficiency of the evidence and the sentencing decisions, affirming Jenkins's conviction and sentence. View "USA v Jenkins" on Justia Law

Schansman v. Sberbank

2025-02-04T08:00:07-08:00

The case involves the surviving relatives of Quinn Lucas Schansman, a passenger on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17), which was shot down over eastern Ukraine by a missile launched from territory controlled by the Russian Federation-backed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). The plaintiffs allege that Sberbank of Russia PJSC (Sberbank) provided material support to the DPR by facilitating money transfers from donors to the DPR via correspondent accounts in the United States, which they claim proximately caused the downing of MH17. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Sberbank’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on foreign sovereign immunity grounds. Sberbank argued that it was immune under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) after the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation acquired a majority share in Sberbank. The district court found that Sberbank was presumptively immune under the FSIA but that the commercial activity exception applied, as the claims were based on commercial activities carried out in the United States. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and held that Sberbank is presumptively immune under the FSIA due to its majority ownership by the Russian Ministry of Finance. However, the court also held that the FSIA’s commercial activity exception applies to Sberbank’s conduct, as the alleged claims are based on commercial activities—facilitating money transfers—carried out in the United States. Additionally, the court held that the ATA’s immunity provisions apply to instrumentalities of foreign states and that the FSIA’s commercial activity exception applies equally to actions brought under the ATA. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Schansman v. Sberbank" on Justia Law

United States v. Oladokun

2025-01-24T07:30:06-08:00

Oladayo Oladokun was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. His involvement included directing others to open bank accounts to receive stolen or forged checks and launder money. He was sentenced to 125 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. Oladokun appealed, challenging the district court's calculation of his offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. He argued against the application of an eighteen-level enhancement based on the loss amount, a two-level enhancement for ten or more victims, and a four-level enhancement for his role in an offense involving five or more participants. Additionally, he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for not requesting a Franks hearing to suppress evidence obtained from his residence. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court did not err in its factual basis for the Guidelines enhancements. It upheld the eighteen-level enhancement for the intended loss amount, the two-level enhancement for ten or more victims, and the four-level enhancement for Oladokun's role in the offense. The court also rejected Oladokun's ineffective assistance claim, noting that even if his counsel had been ineffective, Oladokun failed to show the requisite prejudice because the warrant application was supported by probable cause without the challenged evidence. The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Oladokun" on Justia Law

Banco Mercantil Del Norte, S.A v. Cartograf USA, Inc.

2025-01-22T11:30:27-08:00

Banorte, a group of five associated entities of the Mexican bank Grupo Financiero Banorte, sued Cartograf S.A. de C.V. (Cartograf Mexico) in the Fourth Civil Court of Mexico City in 2021. Banorte alleged that Cartograf Mexico and its sole administrator, José Páramo Riestra, defaulted on loans and concealed assets. Banorte filed an ex parte application in the Eastern District of Virginia to conduct discovery on Cartograf Mexico’s American subsidiary, Cartograf USA, Inc., under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. The district court granted the application, allowing Banorte to serve Cartograf USA with a subpoena. Cartograf USA moved to quash the subpoena, but the district court denied the motion. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted Banorte’s application for discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, finding that the statutory requirements and discretionary factors set out in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. weighed in Banorte’s favor. The court allowed Banorte to serve subpoenas on Cartograf USA, seeking documents and deposition testimony related to Cartograf USA’s relationship with Cartograf Mexico and Páramo. Cartograf USA argued that the discovery was not for use in a foreign proceeding and that Banorte’s requests were made in bad faith, but the district court rejected these arguments. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s decision. The Fourth Circuit held that Banorte satisfied the statutory requirements of § 1782, including the “for use” requirement, as the requested discovery had a reasonable possibility of being useful in the Mexican civil proceedings. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in analyzing the Intel factors, including the receptivity of the foreign tribunal and whether the request was an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court’s careful consideration of the factors and its decision to grant the application and deny the motion to quash were appropriate. View "Banco Mercantil Del Norte, S.A v. Cartograf USA, Inc." on Justia Law

Fustolo v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

2024-12-12T14:30:05-08:00

Steven Fustolo purchased a rental investment unit in Boston, Massachusetts, in 2009, taking out a mortgage with Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) as nominee for Union Capital Mortgage Business Trust. The mortgage was reassigned six times, and Fustolo defaulted on the loan. He sought a declaratory judgment that the current holders, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation as Trustee of SCRT 2019-2 (the Trust) and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS), had no right to foreclose because they did not validly hold the mortgage or the accompanying promissory note. Fustolo also claimed defamation, slander of title, unfair business practices, violation of Massachusetts's Debt Collection Act, and a violation of Regulation X of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) by SPS. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed Fustolo's claims, except for one count challenging the adequacy of a notice letter, which was later settled. The court found that the Trust validly held both the mortgage and the note, and that Fustolo's state law claims hinged on the incorrect assertion that the Trust did not have the right to foreclose. The court also dismissed the RESPA claim, stating that Fustolo failed to specify which provision of RESPA was violated and that SPS had responded to his notice of error. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The appellate court held that the Trust validly held the mortgage and the note, as the note was indorsed in blank and in the Trust's possession. The court also found that MERS had the authority to assign the mortgage despite Union Capital's dissolution. Additionally, the court ruled that Fustolo's RESPA claim failed because challenges to the merits of a servicer's evaluation of a loss mitigation application do not relate to the servicing of the loan and are not covered errors under RESPA. View "Fustolo v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc." on Justia Law

United States v. Ashley

2024-12-12T10:30:30-08:00

Keith Todd Ashley, a licensed financial advisor, was charged and convicted on 17 counts of violating federal law, including mail and wire fraud, Hobbs Act robbery, and bank theft. He operated a Ponzi scheme and allegedly murdered one of his clients to steal funds from the client’s bank account and benefit from the client’s life insurance proceeds. The district court sentenced Ashley to 240 months’ imprisonment for each of 15 counts of wire and mail fraud and imposed life sentences for his convictions of Hobbs Act robbery and bank theft. In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Ashley was found guilty on all counts presented. He filed motions for continuance and severance, which were denied by the district court. The jury found Ashley guilty on all counts, and the district court sentenced him accordingly. Ashley then appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for most of his convictions, the reasonableness of his sentence, and the denial of his motions for continuance and severance. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The government conceded that there was insufficient evidence to convict Ashley of five counts and that the life-sentence enhancement for his conviction of bank theft did not apply. The Fifth Circuit agreed, affirming some of Ashley’s convictions, vacating others, and remanding the case for resentencing and further proceedings. Specifically, the court affirmed Ashley’s convictions on Counts 1, 3, 14, and 19, vacated his convictions on Counts 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18, and remanded for resentencing. The court also addressed Ashley’s challenges to the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence and the cumulative error doctrine but found no reversible error in those respects. View "United States v. Ashley" on Justia Law

US v. Russell Laffitte

2024-11-14T12:00:21-08:00

The case involves Russell Lucius Laffitte, who was convicted of bank and wire fraud in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The government alleged that between 2006 and 2021, Laffitte, as CEO of Palmetto State Bank, conspired with Alex Murdaugh, a disbarred attorney, to defraud Murdaugh’s clients. Laffitte was accused of using his position to access settlement accounts, collecting fees, and extending unsecured loans to Murdaugh, resulting in nearly two million dollars being stolen from the accounts. Laffitte was charged with conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud, bank fraud, wire fraud, and misapplication of bank funds. During the trial, the government presented fifteen witnesses, and Laffitte called eight witnesses and testified in his own defense. After the jury began deliberations, the court received notes from jurors indicating issues, including one juror needing medication and another feeling pressured. The district court decided to remove two jurors, Juror No. 88 and Juror No. 93, and replaced them with alternates. The jury then returned a guilty verdict on all counts. Laffitte appealed, arguing that the removal of the jurors violated his Fifth Amendment right to be present and his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found that the removal of Juror No. 88 violated Laffitte’s Sixth Amendment right because there was a reasonable and substantial possibility that her removal was related to her views on the case. The court also found that the removal violated Laffitte’s Fifth Amendment right to be present, as he was not present during the in camera interview when the decision to remove Juror No. 88 was made. The court concluded that these errors were not harmless and vacated Laffitte’s convictions and sentence, remanding the case for a new trial. View "US v. Russell Laffitte" on Justia Law

Peterson v. Bank Markazi

2024-11-13T08:00:27-08:00

The plaintiffs, a group of American service members and their families affected by the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, sought to enforce multi-billion-dollar judgments against Iran. They aimed to obtain $1.68 billion held in an account with Clearstream Banking, a Luxembourg-based financial institution, representing bond investments made in New York on behalf of Bank Markazi, Iran’s central bank. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering Clearstream and Bank Markazi to turn over the account contents. Clearstream and Bank Markazi appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court concluded that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ turnover claim against Bank Markazi. However, it determined that the district court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Clearstream. The court also found that Clearstream’s challenge to the constitutionality of 22 U.S.C. § 8772, which makes certain assets available to satisfy judgments against Iran, failed. Despite this, the court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs without applying state law to determine the ownership of the assets. The Second Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part the district court's order and judgment. It remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the district court to determine whether Bank Markazi is an indispensable party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 and to apply state law to ascertain the parties' interests in the assets before applying 22 U.S.C. § 8772. View "Peterson v. Bank Markazi" on Justia Law

RBC GLOBAL ASSET MANAGEMENT (U.S.) INC. v. LATTIMORE

2024-10-15T04:34:16-08:00

Markisha Lattimore obtained a judgment exceeding $20 million against Kim Brothers Kickin’ Kids, LLC. Instead of collecting directly from Kickin’ Kids, Lattimore initiated garnishment actions against twelve financial services companies, including RBC Global Asset Management (U.S.), Inc. (Global), using a garnishment summons form for financial institutions. Global, a registered investment advisor, did not respond to the summons, leading Lattimore to move for a garnishment default judgment for the full amount. Global claimed it did not receive the motion and did not respond. The State Court of Fulton County entered a default judgment against Global. The State Court of Fulton County denied Global’s motion to set aside the default judgment. The court ruled that Global was a financial institution, that Lattimore used the correct summons form, and that Global waived any defect in the form used. Global argued that it was not a financial institution as defined by the statute and that the incorrect summons form invalidated the garnishment action, thus failing to establish personal jurisdiction. The court also ruled that Global could not challenge the constitutionality of the default judgment in its motion to set aside. The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case and reversed the lower court’s decision. The court held that Global, as a registered investment advisor, did not meet the statutory definition of a financial institution. Therefore, Lattimore used the wrong summons form, rendering the garnishment invalid and failing to obtain personal jurisdiction over Global. The court concluded that the State Court of Fulton County abused its discretion in denying Global’s motion to set aside the default judgment. The judgment was reversed. View "RBC GLOBAL ASSET MANAGEMENT (U.S.) INC. v. LATTIMORE" on Justia Law

M & I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Higdon

2024-09-27T06:37:07-08:00

Kevin and Gretchen Higdon, residents of Missouri, opened a joint bank account in Missouri, which was later held by Equity Bank. M & I Marshall & Ilsley Bank obtained a judgment against Kevin in Missouri and sought to garnish the Higdons' account in Kansas to satisfy the judgment. The account was listed as "Joint (Right of Survivorship)" under Missouri law, which presumes a tenancy by the entirety for married couples, meaning the account could not be garnished for a judgment against only one spouse. The Johnson County District Court in Kansas denied the Higdons' motion to quash the garnishment, applying Kansas law, which does not recognize tenancy by the entirety. The court held that the account was a joint tenancy, allowing M & I Bank to garnish Kevin's half of the account. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, focusing on the procedural nature of garnishment under Kansas law. The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the issue of account ownership was substantive, not procedural. The court applied the First Restatement of Conflict of Laws, which directs that the law of the state where the property interest was created (Missouri) should govern. Under Missouri law, the account was held as a tenancy by the entirety, and thus, M & I Bank could not garnish it for a judgment against Kevin alone. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and remanded the case with directions to return the garnished funds to the Higdons, holding that Missouri law applied to the ownership of the account, preventing the garnishment. View "M & I Marshall & Ilsley Bank v. Higdon" on Justia Law

Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank N.A.

2024-09-12T07:30:47-08:00

Thomas Petters orchestrated a Ponzi scheme through his company, Petters Company, Inc. (PCI), which collapsed in 2008. Following Petters' arrest and conviction, PCI was placed into receivership, and Douglas Kelley was appointed as the receiver. Kelley later filed for bankruptcy on behalf of PCI and was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee. As trustee, Kelley initiated an adversary proceeding against BMO Harris Bank, alleging that the bank aided and abetted the Ponzi scheme. The bankruptcy court and the district court both ruled that the equitable defense of in pari delicto, which prevents a plaintiff who has participated in wrongdoing from recovering damages, was unavailable due to PCI's receivership status. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury awarded Kelley over $500 million in damages, finding BMO liable for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. BMO appealed, challenging the availability of the in pari delicto defense, among other issues. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the doctrine of in pari delicto barred Kelley’s action against BMO. The court reasoned that while a receiver might not be bound by the fraudulent acts of a corporation's officers under Minnesota law, a bankruptcy trustee stands in the shoes of the debtor and is subject to any defenses that could have been raised against the debtor. Since PCI was a wrongdoer, the defense of in pari delicto was available to BMO in the adversary proceeding. The court reversed the district court's judgment and remanded the case with directions to enter judgment in favor of BMO. The cross-appeal was dismissed as moot. View "Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank N.A." on Justia Law

United States v. Freitekh

2024-09-03T10:00:50-08:00

The case involves Izzat and Tarik Freitekh, who were convicted of various offenses related to a fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan scheme. They received $1.75 million in PPP loan funds through false representations and fabricated documents. Izzat owned several businesses, and with Tarik's help, they submitted fraudulent loan applications. The funds were deposited into accounts controlled by Izzat, and he distributed some of the money to family members under the guise of payroll. The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina initially reviewed the case. Both defendants were indicted for bank fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and other related charges. During the trial, the court admitted testimony from their former attorneys, who had received and submitted falsified documents to the government. The jury found Izzat guilty of conspiracy to commit money laundering, money laundering, and making false statements, while Tarik was found guilty of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, bank fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, money laundering, and falsifying material facts. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decisions, holding that sufficient evidence supported the convictions. The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including emails and checks, was enough to prove Izzat's involvement in the money laundering conspiracy. The court also upheld the district court's reliance on acquitted conduct to calculate the sentencing enhancements, noting that the evidence presented at trial proved Izzat's participation in the fraudulent scheme by a preponderance of the evidence. The court also found no error in the district court's application of the "intended loss" definition in the sentencing guidelines. Tarik's arguments regarding the calculation of the loss amount and the application of the sophisticated means enhancement were also rejected. The court concluded that the district court had properly considered the relevant sentencing factors and affirmed the sentences imposed. View "United States v. Freitekh" on Justia Law

United States ex rel. Doe v. Credit Suisse AG

2024-08-29T11:00:54-08:00

A former employee of Credit Suisse, John Doe, filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA) alleging that the bank failed to disclose ongoing criminal conduct to the United States, thereby avoiding additional penalties. This followed Credit Suisse's 2014 guilty plea to conspiracy charges for aiding U.S. taxpayers in filing false tax returns, which included a $1.3 billion fine. Doe claimed that Credit Suisse continued its illegal activities post-plea, thus defrauding the government. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted the government's motion to dismiss the case. The government argued that Doe's allegations did not state a valid claim under the FCA and that continuing the litigation would strain resources and interfere with ongoing obligations under the plea agreement. The district court dismissed the action without holding an in-person hearing, relying instead on written submissions from both parties. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the "hearing" requirement under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A) of the FCA can be satisfied through written submissions and does not necessitate a formal, in-person hearing. The court found that Doe did not present a colorable claim that his constitutional rights were violated by the dismissal. The court emphasized that the government has broad discretion to dismiss qui tam actions and that the district court properly considered the government's valid reasons for dismissal, including resource conservation and the protection of privileged information. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court's dismissal was appropriate and affirmed the judgment. View "United States ex rel. Doe v. Credit Suisse AG" on Justia Law

Banco Mercantil de Norte, S.A. v. Paramo

2024-08-28T15:30:16-08:00

Juan Jose Paramo, the defendant-appellant, is involved in a legal dispute with Banco Mercantil de Norte, S.A. and Arrendadora y Factor Banorte, S.A. de C.V. (the Banorte Parties). The Banorte Parties allege that Paramo committed large-scale fraud in Mexico and fled to the United States. They are pursuing a civil lawsuit in Mexico and sought discovery in the U.S. under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 to locate and seize Paramo’s assets. The Banorte Parties filed an ex parte request for discovery assistance, which the district court granted, authorizing subpoenas for Paramo and two other individuals. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the Banorte Parties' petition and authorized the subpoenas. Paramo filed a motion to quash the subpoenas, arguing that the discovery request was overly broad and that the Intel factors favored him. The district court denied Paramo’s motion in a brief order without waiting for his reply or holding a hearing. Paramo appealed the decision, arguing that the district court failed to provide reasoning for its denial and violated local rules by not allowing him to file a reply. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to provide any reasoning for its decision to deny Paramo’s motion to quash. The Fifth Circuit emphasized that district courts must explain their decisions when granting or denying motions to quash § 1782 subpoenas to allow for effective appellate review. Consequently, the Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to provide a reasoned decision. The court did not address the substantive arguments regarding the Intel factors or the scope of the discovery request. View "Banco Mercantil de Norte, S.A. v. Paramo" on Justia Law

USA V. HUGHES

2024-08-21T08:30:51-08:00

Timberly Hughes, a U.S. citizen, failed to report her foreign bank accounts for the years 2010 through 2013, as required under the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970. Hughes owned two companies in New Zealand and had financial interests in their accounts. The United States assessed penalties against her for willful failure to file the required Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBARs) for 2012 and 2013, totaling $678,899. Hughes did not pay, leading the United States to file suit in federal court. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California held a bench trial and found that Hughes willfully failed to file FBARs for 2012 and 2013 but not for 2010 and 2011. The court concluded that "willfulness" for civil FBAR penalties could be shown through recklessness or willful blindness, following the Supreme Court's reasoning in Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr. The court entered a final judgment against Hughes for $238,125.19 in substantive penalties but denied the United States' request for prejudgment interest and late payment penalties. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit agreed that "willfulness" for civil FBAR penalties includes both knowing and reckless violations, aligning with the reasoning in Safeco and the consensus of other circuits. The court found that Hughes's failure to file was willful for 2012 and 2013, as she had acknowledged the requirement on her tax returns but failed to comply. The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's judgment and rejected Hughes's argument that subjective intent was necessary to establish willfulness. View "USA V. HUGHES" on Justia Law

Lyons v. PNC Bank, N.A.

2024-08-14T10:30:24-08:00

William Lyons opened a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) account with National City Bank in 2005, which was later acquired by PNC Bank. PNC withdrew funds from Lyons' deposit accounts to offset outstanding HELOC payments without prior notification. Lyons contested these withdrawals, claiming they were unauthorized. PNC responded, asserting their right to make the withdrawals. Lyons then sued for economic and statutory damages, as well as emotional distress. The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. PNC moved to compel arbitration on the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) claim, which the district court partially granted. Both parties appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the Dodd-Frank Act prohibits arbitration of claims related to residential mortgage loans. The case was remanded to the district court, which ruled in favor of PNC on both the TILA and Real Estate Settlement Practices Act (RESPA) claims. The district court held that TILA’s offset provision does not apply to HELOCs and that the CFPB had the authority to exempt HELOCs from RESPA’s requirements. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that TILA’s offset provision does apply to HELOCs, reversing the district court’s decision on the TILA claim. The court found that the term "credit card plan" includes HELOCs when accessed via a credit card. However, the court affirmed the district court’s decision on the RESPA claim, agreeing that the CFPB has the authority to exempt HELOCs from RESPA’s definition of “federally related mortgage loans.” The case was reversed and remanded in part and affirmed in part. View "Lyons v. PNC Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Miller v. United States, Citibank, N.A.

2024-08-06T06:30:06-08:00

In 2019, Tamika Miller filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA) against Citibank, alleging that the bank violated 2015 consent orders by hiding failures in its management of third-party risks to avoid paying regulatory fines. Miller claimed that Citibank altered audit reports to downplay compliance violations, thereby avoiding penalties. The United States declined to intervene in June 2020. In October 2020, Citibank entered into a new consent order with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and paid a $400 million civil penalty. Miller sought a share of this penalty, arguing it was an alternate remedy for her qui tam claim. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Citibank's motion to dismiss Miller's complaint for failure to state a claim and denied her motion for a share of the $400 million penalty. The court found that Miller failed to allege an "obligation" to pay the government as required by the FCA and did not meet the particularity requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The court also denied Miller's request for leave to amend her complaint, concluding that the deficiencies could not be cured by amendment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that Miller failed to state a reverse false claim because she did not allege an established duty for Citibank to pay the government. The court also found that Miller's complaint did not meet the particularity requirement of Rule 9(b) as it failed to identify specific false statements or reports. Consequently, Miller was not entitled to a share of the $400 million penalty, and the district court did not err in denying her leave to amend her complaint. View "Miller v. United States, Citibank, N.A." on Justia Law

Lafortune v. Garland

2024-08-05T13:00:05-08:00

Fesnel Lafortune, a Haitian national, entered the U.S. on a B-2 visitor visa in 2008 and overstayed. In 2019, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and aggravated identity theft, receiving a combined prison sentence of 31 months. Following his convictions, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) charged him with removability due to his lack of lawful status and his conviction for an aggravated felony involving fraud exceeding $10,000. The Immigration Judge (IJ) found Lafortune removable and denied his claims for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Lafortune, appearing pro se, requested continuances to find counsel, which were denied. He admitted to the allegations and expressed fear of returning to Haiti. The IJ ruled him ineligible for asylum and other protections, citing his conviction as a particularly serious crime. Lafortune appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which remanded the case for him to secure counsel. On remand, the IJ again denied his requests for continuances and upheld the original decision. Lafortune, now with counsel, appealed again to the BIA, which dismissed his appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court upheld the BIA's decision, agreeing that Lafortune's conviction for conspiracy to commit bank fraud constituted a particularly serious crime, making him ineligible for withholding of removal. The court also found no error in the IJ's and BIA's handling of Lafortune's CAT claim, concluding that he failed to demonstrate a particularized risk of torture by or with the acquiescence of Haitian officials. The petition for review was denied. View "Lafortune v. Garland" on Justia Law

USA v. Cook

2024-07-17T10:00:36-08:00

Brian Cook entered a bank in Roseville, Illinois, wearing a disguise and armed with what appeared to be a gun, later identified as an air pistol. He threatened two tellers, directing one to retrieve money from the vault and instructing the other to stay put. Cook fled with a bag of cash but was quickly apprehended by law enforcement, who found the stolen money and the air pistol in his vehicle. Cook pleaded guilty to bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). The United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois sentenced Cook to 144 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The court applied a four-level enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(2)(D) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, finding that Cook had "otherwise used" the gun during the robbery. Cook contested this, arguing that he had only "brandished" the gun, which would warrant a lesser, three-level enhancement under § 2B3.1(b)(2)(E). The district court also considered Cook's extensive criminal history and his deliberate targeting of a small-town bank in its sentencing decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court found no procedural error in the application of the four-level enhancement, agreeing that Cook's actions constituted "otherwise using" the gun. The court also upheld the above-Guidelines sentence, noting that the district court had provided a thorough explanation for its decision, including Cook's extensive criminal history and the need for deterrence and public protection. The appellate court concluded that the sentence was neither procedurally erroneous nor substantively unreasonable. View "USA v. Cook" on Justia Law

Michigan First Credit Union v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

2024-07-16T11:00:35-08:00

Michigan First Credit Union reimbursed its customers for unauthorized electronic fund transfers resulting from a SIM Swap scam involving T-Mobile USA, Inc. Michigan First sought to recover these funds from T-Mobile, claiming indemnification or contribution under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and state law. The district court dismissed the complaint, ruling that Michigan First failed to state a claim for indemnification or contribution under both the EFTA and state law. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed Michigan First’s claims, finding no basis for indemnification or contribution under the EFTA or state law. Michigan First appealed, arguing that the EFTA implies a right to indemnification or contribution, that the Michigan Electronic Funds Transfer Act (MEFTA) is not preempted by the EFTA, and that its state common-law indemnification claim should stand. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court held that the EFTA does not imply a right to indemnification or contribution for financial institutions, as the statute is designed to protect consumers, not financial institutions. The court also found that the EFTA preempts the MEFTA and any state common-law claims for indemnification or contribution, as allowing such claims would conflict with the EFTA’s comprehensive regulatory scheme. Consequently, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Michigan First’s complaint. View "Michigan First Credit Union v. T-Mobile USA, Inc." on Justia Law

DeCastro v. Arthur

2024-07-10T07:30:20-08:00

Dr. Igor DeCastro, a neurosurgeon, worked at the Hot Springs Neurosurgery Clinic for seven years. He claimed that after his initial 18-month salary period, he was supposed to receive compensation based on the net proceeds of his production, less 33% of the clinic's overhead. However, he alleged that he never received more than his base salary because Dr. James Arthur, the clinic's owner, diverted the funds into a "secret account." DeCastro also sued Bank OZK, where the account was held, leading the bank to request the court to determine the rightful owner of the funds. The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas dismissed DeCastro's amended complaint for failing to include essential facts, such as specific amounts received, production details, and overhead costs. The court also disbursed the funds to Arthur and denied DeCastro's motions for reconsideration, discovery, and leave to file a second amended complaint. DeCastro's subsequent attempts to revive the case, including a counterclaim in an unrelated contribution action, were dismissed based on res judicata. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court agreed that DeCastro's amended complaint lacked sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim for relief. The court noted that the complaint was filled with legal conclusions rather than specific facts about the alleged breach. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of DeCastro's post-dismissal motions, as the employment agreement he later produced did not support his original claims. The court also upheld the dismissal of DeCastro's counterclaim based on res judicata, as it was identical to the previously adjudicated claims. View "DeCastro v. Arthur" on Justia Law

Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors

2024-07-01T07:54:18-08:00

The case involves Corner Post, a merchant that accepts debit cards as a form of payment. Debit card transactions require merchants to pay an "interchange fee" to the bank that issued the card. The fee amount is set by the payment networks (such as Visa and MasterCard) that process the transaction. In 2010, Congress tasked the Federal Reserve Board with ensuring that interchange fees were "reasonable and proportional to the cost incurred by the issuer with respect to the transaction." In 2011, the Board published Regulation II, which sets a maximum interchange fee of $0.21 per transaction plus .05% of the transaction’s value. In 2021, Corner Post joined a suit against the Board under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), challenging Regulation II on the ground that it allows higher interchange fees than the statute permits. The District Court dismissed the suit as time-barred under 28 U. S. C. §2401(a), the default six-year statute of limitations applicable to suits against the United States. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision. The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Eighth Circuit. The Court held that an APA claim does not accrue for purposes of §2401(a)’s 6-year statute of limitations until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action. The Court disagreed with the Board's argument that an APA claim “accrues” under §2401(a) when agency action is “final” for purposes of §704; the claim can accrue for purposes of the statute of limitations even before the plaintiff suffers an injury. The Court held that a right of action “accrues” when the plaintiff has a “complete and present cause of action,” which is when she has the right to “file suit and obtain relief.” Because an APA plaintiff may not file suit and obtain relief until she suffers an injury from final agency action, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until she is injured. View "Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors" on Justia Law

Approved Mortgage Corporation v. Truist Bank

2024-06-28T11:30:19-08:00

A mortgage company, Approved Mortgage Corporation, initiated two wire transfers, but the instructions for the transactions were altered by a third party. The funds were transferred to Truist Bank, which deposited the funds into an account it had previously flagged as suspicious. The funds were then withdrawn in the form of cashier’s checks. Approved Mortgage sued Truist, seeking damages in the amount of the transfers. The company asserted two claims under the Indiana Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which governs the rights, duties, and liabilities of banks and their customers with respect to electronic funds transfers, and a common law negligence claim. The district court dismissed the UCC claims due to lack of privity between Approved Mortgage and Truist, and dismissed the negligence claim as preempted by the UCC. The court held that the UCC does not establish an independent remedy and must be read with another section of the UCC, which entitles a sender to a refund only from the bank which received its payment. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the UCC claims, agreeing with the lower court that the UCC does not establish an independent remedy and must be read with another section of the UCC. However, the appellate court reversed the dismissal of the negligence claim, holding that to the extent the negligence claim arises from Truist’s issuance of the cashier’s checks after Truist credited the funds to the suspicious account, the claim is not preempted by the UCC. The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "Approved Mortgage Corporation v. Truist Bank" on Justia Law

Foster v. First Merchants Bank, N.A.

2024-06-27T13:34:24-08:00

The case revolves around a dispute between Treslong Dairy, LLC, First Merchants Bank, the Earl Goodwine Trust, and Jeffrey and Kathie Foster. Treslong Dairy had executed promissory notes with all parties, granting them security interests in various properties. After Treslong defaulted on its note with the Bank, the Bank sued to collect its debt. The Trust and the Fosters (collectively “Farmers”) intervened in the action. When Treslong failed to sell its property, the Bank sought final judgment on its unpaid balance. The Bank sold the haylage and corn silage for $230,000, which was insufficient to satisfy the full judgment. As junior lienholders, the Farmers received no proceeds from the sale. The Farmers then sued the Bank for money damages, claiming that the sale was not conducted in a commercially reasonable manner. The trial court granted the Bank's motion to dismiss the Farmers' case under Rule 41(E), which allows for dismissal of a civil case for a party's failure to move the case along. The Farmers appealed, arguing that the Bank's motion was untimely for Rule 41(E) purposes. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision as to Rule 41(E) but affirmed based on laches. The Indiana Supreme Court agreed with the Farmers. It held that the Bank's motion for dismissal under Rule 41(E) was untimely because it was filed after the Farmers had resumed prosecution by requesting a case-management conference. Therefore, the case could not be dismissed under that rule. The court also rejected the Bank's alternative argument that the equitable doctrine of laches applied. The court reversed the lower court's dismissal order and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Foster v. First Merchants Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Wahba v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

2024-06-26T04:01:49-08:00

The case involves a dispute over a foreclosure judgment. The plaintiff, Susanne P. Wahba, had a loan secured by a mortgage on her property. The defendant, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., acquired the loan and later counterclaimed to foreclose the mortgage. The trial court rendered a judgment of strict foreclosure in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appealed, but the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and remanded the case for the setting of new law days. On remand, the plaintiff objected to the defendant's motion to reset the law days, arguing that the judgment of strict foreclosure did not account for the substantial increase in property values that had occurred during the appeal. The trial court concluded that it had no authority to revisit the merits of the strict foreclosure judgment, as it was bound by the Appellate Court’s rescript order requiring the setting of new law days. The plaintiff then filed a second appeal with the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's decision. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the trial court was not barred by the doctrine of res judicata from entertaining the plaintiff’s request to modify the judgment of strict foreclosure and order a foreclosure by sale. The court also held that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court lacked authority to entertain the plaintiff’s request. The court further held that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the plaintiff was required to file a motion to open the judgment of strict foreclosure and to present evidence that the value of the subject property had substantially increased since the date of the original judgment before the trial court could exercise that authority. The judgment of the Appellate Court was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Wahba v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Llanes v. Bank of America, N.A.

2024-06-20T13:03:47-08:00

The case involves plaintiffs Ronnie and Sharon Llanes and Michael and Lauren Codie (collectively, Borrowers) who purchased homes with mortgages from Bank of America, N.A. (Lender). After the Borrowers defaulted on their mortgages, the properties were foreclosed upon and sold in nonjudicial foreclosure sales. The Borrowers then sued the Lender for wrongful foreclosure, alleging that the Lender's foreclosures did not comply with Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 667-5 (2008) (since repealed). The case was initially heard in the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, where the Lender moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Borrowers did not prove damages. The circuit court denied the motion due to factual disputes and lack of clarity in existing law. However, after the Supreme Court of Hawai‘i issued its decision in Lima v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., the Lender renewed its summary judgment motion, arguing that under Lima, the Borrowers’ claims failed as a matter of law because they did not provide evidence of damages that accounted for their pre-foreclosure mortgage debts. The circuit court granted the Lender's renewed motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Borrowers had not proven their damages after accounting for their debts under Lima. On appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i, the Borrowers argued that the circuit court erred by concluding that they bore the burden of proving their damages and did not meet that burden. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision, holding that outstanding debt may not be counted as damages in wrongful foreclosure cases. The court concluded that the Borrowers did not prove the damages element of their wrongful foreclosure claims, and therefore, the circuit court properly granted summary judgment to the Lender. View "Llanes v. Bank of America, N.A." on Justia Law

USA v. Johnson

2024-06-18T08:30:28-08:00

The defendant, Christopher Johnson, was indicted and pleaded guilty to wire fraud and aggravated identity theft after purchasing stolen credit card data and using it to produce counterfeit cards. The district court, when calculating the loss under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, deferred to the guidelines commentary and assessed a $500 minimum loss for each card. Johnson argued that the guidelines commentary was not entitled to deference as an interpretation of § 2B1.1, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Kisor v. Wilkie. The district court denied Johnson's objection, holding that the term "loss" in the context of § 2B1.1 was genuinely ambiguous and that the minimum loss amount was a reasonable interpretation of that term. The court also stated that even without deferring to the guidelines commentary, it would still have assessed a loss of $500 per card. Johnson was sentenced to 58 months' imprisonment: 34 months for wire fraud and the mandatory 24 months for aggravated identity theft. On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Johnson challenged the district court's deference to the guidelines commentary. The court, however, affirmed the judgment of the district court. The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Kisor v. Wilkie did not disturb the Supreme Court’s holding in Stinson v. United States that guidelines commentary is “authoritative unless it violates the Constitution or a federal statute, or is inconsistent with, or a plainly erroneous reading of” the guideline it interprets. The court concluded that the guidelines commentary assessing $500 minimum loss per credit card therefore remains binding under Stinson. View "USA v. Johnson" on Justia Law

American Collection Systems, Inc. v. Judkins

2024-06-18T07:10:57-08:00

The case involves American Collection Systems, Inc. (ACS), a Wyoming corporation, and Lacy D. Judkins. ACS had obtained a default judgment against Judkins in 2010. However, ACS failed to execute the judgment for over five years, causing it to become dormant under Wyoming law. In 2022, ACS filed a motion to revive the dormant judgment. The district court revived the judgment but declined to award post-judgment interest. ACS then filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment to include post-judgment interest, which the district court denied. ACS appealed, arguing that the district court was legally required to award post-judgment interest. The Supreme Court of Wyoming found that it only had jurisdiction to review the district court's denial of ACS's motion to alter or amend the judgment, not the underlying judgment itself. The court noted that ACS's notice of appeal specifically identified only the post-judgment order as the order being appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Wyoming determined that the district court had misapprehended the controlling law when it denied ACS's request for mandatory post-judgment interest. The court held that the district court abused its discretion because its decision to deny the motion to alter or amend the judgment was based on erroneous legal conclusions. The Supreme Court of Wyoming reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to enter an amended judgment that includes the post-judgment interest through the date the judgment became dormant. View "American Collection Systems, Inc. v. Judkins" on Justia Law

Meiergerd v. Qatalyst Corp.

2024-06-14T05:36:12-08:00

The case revolves around a dispute over the calculation of postjudgment interest on a series of loans between David Meiergerd and Qatalyst Corporation and Roland Pinto. Meiergerd had filed a complaint in 2007 seeking to recover on a series of loans that occurred between him and the appellees. In 2008, the district court granted Meiergerd’s motion for default judgment, ordering the appellees to pay Meiergerd a certain amount plus postjudgment interest “at the rate of 16% compounded annually ($58.97 per day).” The appellees initiated a separate proceeding in 2022, seeking to vacate or amend the judgment from the earlier proceedings. This new action was ultimately dismissed. Subsequently, in the original case, the court granted the appellees’ motion for revivor. The appellees then filed a “Motion for Satisfaction and Discharge of Judgments” related to the judgment against them. The district court calculated the amount of postjudgment interest due to Meiergerd by multiplying the per diem rate stated in the 2008 order, $58.97, by the number of days between the date of the 2008 order and the date of payment. The court found that the appellees’ checks had satisfied the amount due on the judgment, including postjudgment interest, costs, and attorney fees. Meiergerd appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, asserting that the computation of the amount due and owing in the satisfaction of judgment improperly used the specified per diem rate, but failed to apply compound interest on the postjudgment amount. He contended that the district court’s approval of this daily rate disregards the language in the 2008 order that stated that postjudgment interest would be “compounded annually.” The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the district court, and Meiergerd petitioned for further review. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The court concluded that the 2008 order was ambiguous with respect to the manner of calculating postjudgment interest, and determined that the 2008 order provided for simple interest and did not introduce compound interest that had not been requested by Meiergerd or supported by prior conduct between the parties. View "Meiergerd v. Qatalyst Corp." on Justia Law

North American Savings Bank v. Nelson

2024-06-04T09:30:39-08:00

In this case, a Delaware statutory trust, NB Taylor Bend, DST (Taylor Bend), borrowed $13 million from Prudential Mortgage Capital Company, LLC (Prudential) to acquire property in Lafayette County, Mississippi. Patrick and Brian Nelson, who were guarantors of the loan, signed an Indemnity and Guaranty Agreement (the Guaranty) in December 2014, personally guaranteeing the loan. After the loan documents were executed, Prudential assigned the loan to Liberty Island Group I, LLC (Liberty), which in turn assigned the loan to North American Savings Bank, FSB (NASB). By May 2020, Taylor Bend struggled to find tenants for the property due to the COVID-19 pandemic and informed NASB of their financial problems. In May 2021, NASB declared Taylor Bend to be in default after the borrower continually failed to make timely loan payments. NASB then filed an action against the Nelsons in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, asserting claims for breach of the Guaranty, for recovery of the loan balance, and for declaratory judgment. The district court entered partial summary judgment for NASB, holding the Nelsons “breached the [G]uaranty and thus owe[d] to [NASB] the amount remaining due on the subject loan.” The court determined that the Guaranty was “freely assignable” and that Prudential adequately assigned all of its rights and interests to Liberty, which in turn assigned all of its rights and interests to NASB, including those conferred by the Guaranty. The court also concluded that the defenses raised by the Nelsons were “unavailable given the borrower’s absence from this litigation.” The court also granted Brian’s motion for summary judgment against Patrick, ruling that the indemnity agreement between the brothers was valid and binding and that Patrick was contractually required to indemnify Brian for “any and all obligations arising out of or relating to this litigation.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Guaranty was properly assigned from Prudential to Liberty and from Liberty to NASB. NASB could therefore properly bring its claims for breach of guaranty and declaratory judgment against the Nelsons to recover the loan deficiency. Moreover, under Mississippi law, Patrick may not interpose equitable defenses that were available only to Taylor Bend to defeat his liability under the Guaranty. The court also held that the deficiency judgment awarded to NASB pursuant to the Guaranty need not be reduced by the third-party sale of the Apartments to Kirkland. NASB had no duty to mitigate its damages under either Mississippi law or the terms of the Guaranty. View "North American Savings Bank v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Stone v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union

2024-06-03T13:30:57-08:00

The case revolves around Lee Hofmann, who controlled multiple businesses, including Games Management and International Supply. Games Management borrowed approximately $2.7 million from Citizens Equity First Credit Union (the Lender), with Hofmann guaranteeing payment. When Games Management defaulted and Hofmann failed to honor his guarantee, the Lender obtained a judgment against Hofmann. In 2013, Hofmann arranged for International Supply to pay the Lender $1.72 million. By 2015, International Supply was in bankruptcy, and a trustee was appointed to distribute its assets to creditors. The bankruptcy court held a trial, during which expert witnesses disagreed on whether International Supply was solvent in 2013. The Trustee's expert testified that it was insolvent under two of three methods of assessing solvency, while the Lender's expert testified that it was solvent under all three methods. The bankruptcy judge concluded that International Supply was insolvent in August 2013 and directed the Lender to pay $1.72 million plus interest to the Trustee. The district court affirmed this decision. The case was then brought before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Lender argued that the only legally permissible approach to defining solvency is the balance-sheet test. However, the court disagreed, stating that the Illinois legislation does not support this view. The court also noted that the Lender had not previously argued for the balance-sheet test to be the exclusive approach, which constituted a forfeiture. The court concluded that the bankruptcy judge was entitled to use multiple methods to determine solvency. The court affirmed the district court's decision, requiring the Lender to pay $1.72 million plus interest to the Trustee. View "Stone v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union" on Justia Law

Cantero v. Bank of America, N. A.

2024-05-30T07:35:06-08:00

The case revolves around a dispute between Alex Cantero, Saul Hymes, Ilana Harwayne-Gidansky, and others (the plaintiffs) and Bank of America. The plaintiffs had obtained home mortgage loans from Bank of America, which required them to make monthly deposits into escrow accounts. These accounts were used by the bank to pay the borrowers' property taxes and insurance premiums. Under New York law, banks are required to pay borrowers interest on the balance of such escrow accounts. However, Bank of America did not pay interest on the money in the plaintiffs' escrow accounts, arguing that the New York law was preempted by the National Bank Act. The plaintiffs filed class-action suits against Bank of America, alleging that the bank violated New York law by failing to pay them interest on the balances in their escrow accounts. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, agreeing that New York law required Bank of America to pay interest on the escrow account balances. The court concluded that nothing in the National Bank Act or other federal law preempted the New York law. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed this decision, holding that the New York interest-on-escrow law was preempted as applied to national banks. The Court of Appeals argued that federal law preempts any state law that attempts to exercise control over a federally granted banking power, regardless of the magnitude of its effects. The Supreme Court of the United States, in reviewing the case, focused on the standard for determining when state laws that regulate national banks are preempted. The Court noted that the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 expressly incorporated the standard articulated in Barnett Bank of Marion County, N. A. v. Nelson, which asks whether a state law "prevents or significantly interferes with the exercise by the national bank of its powers." The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals did not apply this standard in a manner consistent with Dodd-Frank and Barnett Bank. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Cantero v. Bank of America, N. A." on Justia Law

United States v. Reardon

2024-05-23T12:30:04-08:00

Nathan Reardon, who had been self-employed for 24 years, was convicted of bank fraud after submitting fraudulent applications for loans under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), a financial assistance program enacted by Congress in response to the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic. Reardon used several of his businesses to submit the fraudulent applications and misused the funds from the approved loan. He was sentenced to twenty months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. As part of his sentence, the district court imposed a special condition prohibiting Reardon from all forms of self-employment during his supervised release term. Reardon appealed this special condition, arguing that it was overly restrictive and unnecessary. The government suggested a "middle ground" where the condition could be modified to avoid a total prohibition against self-employment, but the district court overruled Reardon's objection and imposed the self-employment ban without explaining why it was the minimum restriction necessary to protect the public, as required by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found that while the district court was justified in imposing an occupational restriction, it did not provide sufficient explanation for why a total ban on self-employment was the minimum restriction necessary to protect the public. The court therefore vacated the self-employment ban and remanded the case for reconsideration of the scope of that restriction. View "United States v. Reardon" on Justia Law

MidFirst Bank v. Brown

2024-05-23T07:37:25-08:00

In 2000, Betty J. Brown took title to a property in Charlotte, North Carolina. She obtained a loan from First Horizon Home Loan Corporation in 2004, secured by a deed of trust. In 2010, a judgment was entered against Brown in South Carolina, which was domesticated and recorded in North Carolina in 2014. In 2016, Brown refinanced the First Horizon loan with Nationstar Mortgage LLC, which paid off the remainder of the First Horizon loan. The deed of trust for the Nationstar loan was recorded after the 2010 judgment. MidFirst Bank is Nationstar’s successor in interest for the 2016 loan. In 2019, enforcement proceedings began against Brown to collect the 2010 judgment. The property was seized and sold at an execution sale, with Brown's daughter, Michelle Anderson, placing the successful bid. The trial court granted summary judgment to MidFirst Bank, asserting that the Nationstar deed of trust still encumbered the property even after the execution sale. The court also held that the doctrine of equitable subrogation applied, allowing Nationstar to assume the rights and priorities of the First Horizon deed of trust. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that the Nationstar lien was extinguished by the execution sale and that the doctrine of equitable subrogation was not available to MidFirst Bank because it was not "excusably ignorant" of the publicly recorded judgment. The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that it erred by applying the incorrect standard regarding equitable subrogation. The court held that the doctrine of equitable subrogation applies when money is expressly advanced to extinguish a prior encumbrance and is used for this purpose. The court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to be remanded to the trial court for reassessment under the correct legal standard. View "MidFirst Bank v. Brown" on Justia Law

Canteen v. Charlotte Metro Credit Union

2024-05-23T07:37:24-08:00

The case involves a dispute over a contract between a plaintiff, Pamela Phillips, and the defendant, Charlotte Metro Credit Union. In 2014, Phillips opened a checking account with the Credit Union and agreed to a standard membership agreement. This agreement included a "Notice of Amendments" provision, which allowed the Credit Union to change the terms of the agreement upon notice to Phillips. In 2021, the Credit Union amended its membership agreement to require arbitration for certain disputes and to waive members' right to file class actions. Phillips did not opt out of this amendment within the given 30-day window. Later that year, Phillips filed a class action complaint against the Credit Union for the collection of overdraft fees on accounts that were never overdrawn. The Credit Union responded by filing a motion to stay the action and compel arbitration. The trial court denied the Credit Union's motion to stay and compel arbitration, concluding that the "Notice of Amendments" provision did not permit the Credit Union to unilaterally add an arbitration provision. The Credit Union appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court's determination and remanded the case to the trial court to stay the action pending arbitration. The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The court concluded that the Arbitration Amendment was within the universe of terms of the contract between the parties, and thus complies with the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and does not render the contract illusory. As such, the Arbitration Amendment is a binding and enforceable agreement between Phillips and the Credit Union. View "Canteen v. Charlotte Metro Credit Union" on Justia Law

J&l Farms

2024-05-23T07:09:45-08:00

The case involves J and L Farms, Inc. (J&L), a South Dakota company, and First Bank, a Florida banking corporation. J&L had an ongoing business relationship with Jackman Wagyu Beef, LLC (Jackman), a Florida-registered company, where Jackman would purchase cattle from J&L. In 2018, Jackman proposed a change in their payment terms, offering to pay for the cattle within 30 days of placing an order, instead of paying prior to the cattle being shipped. To secure each payment, Jackman proposed that J&L would be given a bank guarantee from First Bank. First Bank issued three separate guaranty letters to J&L to secure payment for the sale of cattle. However, Jackman failed to provide full payment for two orders, and First Bank refused to satisfy the outstanding balance. The circuit court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in Brown County, South Dakota, entered a default judgment against Jackman after it failed to plead or defend against J&L’s complaint. First Bank filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that it did not have sufficient minimum contacts for a South Dakota court to exercise personal jurisdiction over it. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court's decision. The Supreme Court found that First Bank had sufficient minimum contacts with South Dakota to establish personal jurisdiction. The court reasoned that First Bank purposefully availed itself of the privileges of acting in South Dakota by issuing three guaranty letters to J&L, a South Dakota company, to facilitate the purchase of South Dakota cattle. The court also found that the cause of action against First Bank arose from its activities directed at South Dakota, and that the acts of First Bank had a substantial connection with South Dakota, making the exercise of jurisdiction over First Bank reasonable. View "J&l Farms" on Justia Law

Kelso v. Applington

2024-05-08T07:34:14-08:00

The case revolves around a dispute over the ownership of funds in a joint checking account following the death of one of the parties named on the account. Karon “Kelly” Kelso was originally a joint owner of a checking account with his wife, Sandra Kelso. After Sandra's death, Linda Applington, a friend of Kelly’s, began helping Kelly process his monthly bills. Kelly later added Linda on his checking account as a joint owner with the right of survivorship. After Kelly's death, his son, Greg Kelso, became the personal representative and sole heir of Kelly’s estate. Greg sought to have the funds transferred to Kelly’s estate, but Linda claimed ownership of the account under the right of survivorship and declined to transfer the funds. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Linda, finding clear and convincing evidence that Kelly intended Linda to have the funds in his account upon his death. Greg appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Idaho. The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for a jury trial. The court found that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of Linda and Janet Overman, an employee of the bank, which raised questions about their credibility. The court held that summary judgment was not proper when the record raises any question as to the credibility of witnesses. The court also vacated the award of attorney fees to Linda, stating that the prevailing party has not been determined and fees may be considered at the conclusion of the case. View "Kelso v. Applington" on Justia Law

Atkinson v. Godfrey

2024-05-02T10:31:15-08:00

Leslie Atkinson purchased a 2003 Chevrolet Avalanche through a retail installment sales contract, which granted the seller a security interest in the vehicle. The seller assigned the sales contract and the security interest to Credit Acceptance Corporation. When Atkinson defaulted on her payments, Credit Acceptance hired Carolina Repo to repossess the vehicle. During the repossession, Atkinson attempted to drive off in the vehicle, leading to a confrontation with the Carolina Repo representative. The representative called the Harnett County Sheriff’s Office for assistance, and Deputy Brent Godfrey arrived on the scene. Godfrey ordered Atkinson out of the vehicle so that the Carolina Repo representative could repossess it. Atkinson sued Godfrey and Sheriff Wayne Coats under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. She claimed that Godfrey, in his individual capacity, violated her Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures of property by facilitating Carolina Repo’s repossession. She also alleged that Coats, in his official capacity as the sheriff, failed to train officers and created policies that deprived her of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures of property. The defendants moved to dismiss Atkinson’s § 1983 claim, asserting that Atkinson did not allege facts showing they acted under color of law, that Godfrey was entitled to qualified immunity, and that, without an underlying constitutional violation, Atkinson failed to bring an actionable claim against the Sheriff’s Office through Coats in his official capacity. The district court denied the motion, finding it could not determine as a matter of law that Godfrey’s actions did not constitute state action, that Godfrey was entitled to qualified immunity, and that the Sheriff’s Office’s liability could be ruled out. Godfrey and Coats appealed the district court’s denial of their motion. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Godfrey’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The court found that neither the Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit, the highest court of North Carolina, nor a consensus of other circuit courts of appeals had determined that conduct similar to that of Godfrey was unconstitutional. Therefore, the right alleged to be violated was not clearly established. The court remanded the case with instructions to grant Godfrey’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the appeal with respect to the claim against Coats, as the issues it presented were not inextricably intertwined with the resolution of the qualified immunity issues. View "Atkinson v. Godfrey" on Justia Law

Intellectual Tech LLC v. Zebra Technologies Corp.

2024-05-01T07:04:22-08:00

The case revolves around Intellectual Tech LLC (IT), a wholly owned subsidiary of OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. (OnAsset), and its patent dispute with Zebra Technologies Corporation (Zebra). In 2019, IT asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,233,247 against Zebra, claiming that it was the owner and assignee of the patent. However, Zebra moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that IT lacked standing. The district court initially denied the motion, but later granted it based on its determination that IT lacked constitutional standing, leading to the dismissal of all claims without prejudice. Previously, OnAsset had granted Main Street Capital Corporation (Main Street), a lender, a security interest in its patents, including the one in question, as part of a loan agreement. When OnAsset defaulted on the loan, Main Street gained certain rights. Subsequently, OnAsset assigned the patent to IT, which also defaulted on its obligations. The district court found that Main Street's ability to license the patent upon default deprived IT of all its exclusionary rights, leading to a lack of constitutional standing. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit disagreed with the district court's interpretation. The appellate court found that IT retained at least one exclusionary right, even considering the rights Main Street gained upon default. The court clarified that a patent owner has exclusionary rights as a baseline matter unless it has transferred all exclusionary rights away. The court concluded that IT still suffered an injury in fact from infringement even if IT and Main Street could both license the patent. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Intellectual Tech LLC v. Zebra Technologies Corp." on Justia Law

Commerzbank AG v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

2024-04-30T06:30:08-08:00

This case involves Commerzbank AG, a German bank, and U.S. Bank, N.A., an American bank. Commerzbank sued U.S. Bank, alleging that it had failed to fulfill its duties as a trustee for residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) that Commerzbank had purchased. The case revolved around three main issues: whether Commerzbank could bring claims related to trusts with "No Action Clauses"; whether Commerzbank's claims related to certificates held through German entities were timely; and whether Commerzbank could bring claims related to certificates it had sold to third parties. The district court had previously dismissed Commerzbank's claims related to trusts with No Action Clauses, granted judgment in favor of U.S. Bank on the timeliness of Commerzbank's claims related to the German certificates, and denied Commerzbank's claims related to the sold certificates. Commerzbank appealed these decisions. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decisions on the timeliness of the German certificate claims and the denial of the sold certificate claims. However, it vacated the district court's dismissal of Commerzbank's claims related to trusts with No Action Clauses and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that Commerzbank's failure to make pre-suit demands on parties other than trustees could be excused in certain circumstances where these parties are sufficiently conflicted. View "Commerzbank AG v. U.S. Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Lelchook v Société Générale de Banque au Liban SAL

2024-04-18T07:07:22-08:00

The case involves 21 U.S. citizens and the family of a deceased U.S. citizen who were victims of rocket attacks by the Hizbollah terrorist organization in Israel in 2006. The plaintiffs allege that the Lebanese Canadian Bank (LCB) provided financial services to Hizbollah, including facilitating millions of dollars in wire transfers through a New York-based correspondent bank. In 2011, LCB and Société Générale de Banque au Liban SAL (SGBL), a private company incorporated in Lebanon, executed a purchase agreement where SGBL acquired all of LCB's assets and liabilities. In 2019, the plaintiffs brought similar claims against SGBL, as LCB's successor, in the Eastern District of New York for damages stemming from the 2006 attacks. The federal district court dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction over SGBL. The court interpreted several Appellate Division and federal decisions to allow imputation of jurisdictional status only in the event of a merger, not an acquisition of all assets and liabilities. On appeal, the Second Circuit certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals, asking whether an entity that acquires all of another entity's liabilities and assets, but does not merge with that entity, inherits the acquired entity's status for purposes of specific personal jurisdiction, and under what circumstances the acquiring entity would be subject to specific personal jurisdiction in New York. The New York Court of Appeals answered the first question affirmatively, stating that where an entity acquires all of another entity's liabilities and assets, but does not merge with that entity, it inherits the acquired entity's status for purposes of specific personal jurisdiction. The court declined to answer the second question as unnecessary. The court reasoned that allowing a successor to acquire all assets and liabilities, but escape jurisdiction in a forum where its predecessor would have been answerable for those liabilities, would allow those assets to be shielded from direct claims for those liabilities in that forum. View "Lelchook v Société Générale de Banque au Liban SAL" on Justia Law

PennyMac Loan Services, LLC v. Roosevelt Associates, RIGP

2024-04-10T07:33:07-08:00

The plaintiff, PennyMac Loan Services, LLC, a mortgage company, held a mortgage interest in a property in Coventry, Rhode Island. The mortgagor, Domenico Companatico, failed to pay 2018 fire district taxes, leading to a tax sale auction where the property was sold to Roosevelt Associates, RIGP. Roosevelt later filed a petition to foreclose any right of redemption, and the Superior Court clerk issued a citation notifying interested parties. The citation did not include a street address for the property. Despite receiving the citation, PennyMac failed to respond and was defaulted. A Superior Court justice entered a final decree foreclosing the right of redemption, and Roosevelt sold the property to Coventry Fire District 5-19, RIGP, which later sold it to Clarke Road Associates, RIGP. PennyMac filed an action to challenge the foreclosure decree, arguing that the citation failed to provide adequate notice, thus denying PennyMac its right to procedural due process. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and a second trial justice concluded that PennyMac had received adequate notice of the petition to foreclose all rights of redemption. The justice also found that the fire district taxes constituted a superior lien on the property and that PennyMac is statutorily barred from asserting a violation of the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the amended judgment of the Superior Court. The court found that the citation, despite lacking a street address, did not constitute a denial of due process. The court also concluded that PennyMac's claim under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act was barred due to its failure to raise any objection during the foreclosure proceeding. Finally, the court determined that the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota did not alter the outcome of this case. View "PennyMac Loan Services, LLC v. Roosevelt Associates, RIGP" on Justia Law

United States v. Tat

2024-04-04T08:00:31-08:00

The case under review is an appeal regarding the resentencing of Vivian Tat, who was involved in a money-laundering scheme. At her initial sentencing, Tat was convicted on several counts and sentenced to 24 months imprisonment. However, she appealed and the higher court vacated her conviction on one count and her sentence, remanding for de novo resentencing. At the resentencing hearing, Tat received an 18-month sentence. Her appeal to this court is her second one, and she argues that the lower court erred in applying sentencing enhancements related to her role as an organizer/leader and her abuse of trust, improperly considered "cost" in dismissing her community-service proposal at sentencing, and violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 by failing to make factual findings about certain parts of her presentence report. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a criminal defendant’s failure to challenge specific aspects of her initial sentence on a prior appeal does not waive her right to challenge comparable aspects of a newly imposed sentence following de novo resentencing. The court found that the lower court had erred in applying an organizer/leader enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, as Tat’s status as a mere member of the criminal enterprise did not bear on whether she was an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of the criminal activity, and the criminal conduct was not “otherwise extensive.” However, the district court did not err in applying an enhancement for abuse of trust under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3, where Tat’s position as a manager at the bank gave her the discretion to carry out transactions like the one at issue here without oversight, and where her position of trust facilitated her role in the underlying offense. The court also found that the lower court did not improperly consider “cost” in dismissing Tat’s community-service proposal. The court vacated Tat’s sentence and remanded to the district court for resentencing consistent with this opinion. View "United States v. Tat" on Justia Law

Taylor v. Bank of America, N.A

2024-03-22T07:31:33-08:00

The case involves a group of plaintiffs who claimed that the defendant, Bank of America, fraudulently denied them mortgage modifications under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) and then foreclosed on their homes. The plaintiffs filed their complaint in May 2018 and their amended complaint in March 2019, alleging claims based on common law fraud, fraudulent concealment, intentional misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, conversion, unjust enrichment, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and, in the alternative, negligence. However, the Supreme Court of North Carolina found that the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. The court held that the statutes of limitations for all of plaintiffs’ claims, except for their unfair and deceptive trade practices claim, started to run at the latest by the date that each plaintiff lost his or her home. Each plaintiff lost his or her home sometime between April 2011 and January 2014. Thus, the latest point in time any plaintiff could have filed a complaint was January 2017, or in the case of an unfair and deceptive trade practices claim, January 2018. Plaintiffs did not file their original complaint until May 2018. Therefore, their claims are time-barred. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations for their fraud claims beyond the dates of their foreclosures. The court found that the plaintiffs were on notice of the defendant's alleged fraud by the time they lost their homes, and they should have investigated further. The court therefore reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint. View "Taylor v. Bank of America, N.A" on Justia Law

Efron v. UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico

2024-03-20T13:30:05-08:00

In this case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the plaintiff-appellant, David Efron, filed a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claim and various Puerto Rico law claims against UBS Financial Services and other defendants. Efron alleged that the defendants had illegally disclosed his private bank account information to his ex-wife, triggering litigation and a subsequent indemnification claim from UBS. The district court dismissed Efron's case after denying him leave to file a second amended complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the district court had not abused its discretion by limiting Efron to deposing only two UBS employees before filing his proposed second amended complaint. The court also agreed that permitting Efron to amend his complaint would be futile, affirming the dismissal of his RICO claim. The court declined to impose sanctions against Efron, despite arguments from UBS that the appeal was frivolous. The court concluded that while Efron's case was weak, it was not so squarely resolved in his prior appeal on a different RICO claim that it could be deemed frivolous. View "Efron v. UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. National Collegiate Master Student Loan Trust

2024-03-19T09:00:15-08:00

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled on a case involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and a group of trusts associated with the National Collegiate Student Loan Trust. The central questions in the case were whether the trusts were "covered persons" under the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA), and whether the CFPB was required to ratify the underlying action. The CFPB had initiated enforcement proceedings against the trusts for alleged violations related to servicing and collecting student loans, which the trusts had contracted out to third parties. The trusts argued that they were not "covered persons" under the CFPA and that the CFPB's action was untimely because it was initiated when the CFPB director was unconstitutionally insulated from presidential removal and ratified after the statute of limitations had expired. The Third Circuit held that the trusts were indeed "covered persons" under the CFPA because they were engaged in offering or providing a consumer financial product or service. The court also held that the CFPB was not required to ratify the action before the statute of limitations had run, following the Supreme Court's decision in Collins v. Yellen. The court concluded that there was no indication that the unconstitutional limitation on the President's authority to remove the CFPB Director harmed the Trusts, and thus no need for ratification. Therefore, the case was affirmed and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings with these determinations in mind. View "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. National Collegiate Master Student Loan Trust" on Justia Law

The Wall Guy, Inc. v. FDIC

2024-03-18T11:00:36-08:00

The case originated from a lending relationship between Jeffrey Frye and his companies, The Wall Guy, Inc., and JR Contractors, and First State Bank. After the relationship soured, both parties sued each other, leading to nearly a decade of litigation involving two state-court lawsuits, a jury trial, post-trial motions, removal to federal district court, and motions practice in that court. However, the appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit were dismissed due to a lack of jurisdiction. The court determined that the plaintiffs had not properly invoked the court's appellate jurisdiction. The plaintiffs had filed a notice of appeal before the district court had announced a decision on a future or pending motion, which under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(B)(ii), was insufficient to give the appellate court jurisdiction over a later order related to that motion. The court also determined that the plaintiffs had not established a timely notice of appeal regarding other orders. The court emphasized that while the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should be liberally construed, they cannot be ignored, especially when they implicate the court's appellate jurisdiction. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not met their burden to establish appellate jurisdiction and dismissed the appeals. View "The Wall Guy, Inc. v. FDIC" on Justia Law

United States v. Markovich

2024-03-14T08:34:16-08:00

The case involved an appeal by two brothers, Jonathan and Daniel Markovich, who were convicted for operating fraudulent drug rehabilitation clinics in Florida. They were found guilty of various charges, including health-care fraud, wire fraud, kickbacks, money laundering, and bank fraud, resulting in fraudulent claims of over $100 million. The brothers appealed their convictions on several grounds. They argued that the district court violated their constitutional rights by denying their motion to compel the prosecution to obtain and disclose confidential medical records possessed by third parties. They also claimed that the court violated Federal Rules of Evidence by admitting unreliable and confusing expert testimony about the clinics' medical and billing practices. Additionally, they argued that the court abused its discretion by admitting lay summary testimony about medical and billing records. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the convictions. The court ruled that the prosecution had no duty to seek out potentially exculpatory evidence not in its possession. It also determined that the expert testimony was clear and reliable, and the summary testimony was proper. The court found that any challenge to bank-fraud counts was forfeited due to a lack of explanation or supporting legal authority. Finally, the court ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the brothers' motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. View "United States v. Markovich" on Justia Law

The Alabama Creditors v. Dorand

2024-03-14T06:31:37-08:00

Creditors obtained a $1.6 million default judgment against Rodney Dorand and sought to satisfy the judgment with funds from Dorand's individual retirement account, held by Morgan Stanley. An Alabama court approved the transfer of funds, but before the transfer occurred, Dorand filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, asserting that the retirement account was exempt property of his bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy court agreed with Dorand. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed this decision, stating that the Alabama judgment did not extinguish Dorand’s interest in his account before he filed his bankruptcy petition. Rodney Dorand had been sued by creditors for damages arising from a failed condominium development. After the state court issued a writ of garnishment to Morgan Stanley, Dorand argued that the retirement account was exempt from garnishment, but the state court rejected this argument. However, before the funds were transferred, Dorand filed for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court determined that the retirement account was Dorand’s exempt property and that the Alabama judgment against garnishee Morgan Stanley “does not affect the [retirement account’s] exempt status.” The Alabama judgment did not terminate all of Dorand's interests in his property. While the judgment had given Morgan Stanley a limited right to transfer Dorand’s funds, it had not exercised that right before Dorand filed for bankruptcy. The Court of Appeals affirmed that the retirement account was part of Dorand’s bankruptcy estate, as Dorand had an interest in the retirement account when he filed for bankruptcy. View "The Alabama Creditors v. Dorand" on Justia Law

Citibank, N.A. v. Moser

2024-03-12T07:16:15-08:00

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court addressed an appeal from Citibank, N.A., challenging a District Court judgment in favor of the defendant, Ashley Moser, in a case related to the collection of credit card debt. The bank argued that the judgment violated its procedural due process rights due to insufficient notice about a hearing scheduled on April 12, 2023. The court had issued notices for both a 'first mediation' and a 'debt collection hearing' on the same day, at the same time, and in the same room. On the hearing day, Citibank's counsel attended without a representative from the bank, assuming that the case was scheduled for mediation and not a final hearing. The court proceeded with the hearing and entered a judgment in favor of Moser, as Citibank failed to satisfy its burden of proof. Citibank appealed, claiming the notices were ambiguous and violated its right to procedural due process. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed with Citibank, noting that the competing notices created an impossibility of both a mediation and a hearing taking place simultaneously. It ruled that the ambiguity in the notices and the court's subsequent judgment denied Citibank the required notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard. The court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Citibank, N.A. v. Moser" on Justia Law

JENNINGS v. THE STATE

2024-03-05T06:01:55-08:00

In this case, the appellant, Savanna Jennings, was convicted of malice murder and related charges in relation to the shooting death of her grandfather, Otha Perrin Sr. The jury found her guilty on all counts, and she was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus fifteen years in confinement. On appeal, Jennings argued that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting other-acts evidence, admitting certain business records, and that her trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance. The Supreme Court of Georgia concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Jennings' financial activities pertaining to her grandfather's bank account, as it formed part of the financial motive for the crime. The court also found no plain error in the admission of Facebook messages between Jennings and another individual, which were arguably hearsay but did not likely affect the outcome of the trial. In terms of ineffective counsel, the court found that Jennings' lawyer did preserve her objections to the admission of the bank records. As for the failure to preserve an objection to the Facebook records and to timely disclose an expert witness, the court concluded that Jennings failed to establish that there was a reasonable probability that these actions affected the outcome of her trial. Therefore, the court affirmed Jennings' convictions. View "JENNINGS v. THE STATE" on Justia Law

FRASERS GROUP PLC v. MORGAN STANLEY

2024-03-04T12:30:15-08:00

The case originates from an Application for Judicial Assistance under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 by Frasers Group PLC ("Frasers"), a British retailer group. Frasers requested to obtain documentary and testimonial evidence from James Patrick Gorman, the former CEO of Morgan Stanley, for use in a lawsuit started in the UK. The district court denied the application, and Frasers appealed this decision. The dispute revolves around a series of transactions Frasers entered into with Saxo Bank A/S related to shares of the fashion company Hugo Boss. Concurrently, Saxo Bank engaged in trades with Morgan Stanley & Co. International PLC, a subsidiary of Morgan Stanley. A margin call was issued by Morgan Stanley, leading to a dispute and the commencement of the lawsuit in the UK. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. The court considered the factors established by the Supreme Court in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., which guide district courts when determining whether to grant domestic discovery for use in foreign proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). The court found that the first factor—whether “the person from whom discovery is sought is a participant in the foreign proceeding”— and the fourth factor—whether the discovery request is “unduly intrusive or burdensome”— weighed against granting the Application. Consequently, the court upheld the denial of the Application. View "FRASERS GROUP PLC v. MORGAN STANLEY" on Justia Law

Leopold v. DOJ

2024-03-01T08:02:30-08:00

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was asked to consider an appeal brought by BuzzFeed, Inc. and one of its journalists, Jason Leopold, against a decision of the District Court granting summary judgment to the Department of Justice (DOJ). The appellants sought the release of a partially redacted report on HSBC Bank's conduct under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The District Court had ruled that the report was entirely exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 8 which protects reports related to the regulation or supervision of financial institutions. The Court of Appeals held that the case must be remanded to the District Court to determine whether the DOJ can demonstrate that the release of any part of the report could foreseeably harm an interest protected by Exemption 8. The Court stressed the requirement for a sequential inquiry: first, whether an exemption applies to a document; and second, whether releasing the information would foreseeably harm an interest protected by the exemption. The Court found that the District Court had not sufficiently conducted this sequential inquiry, and the DOJ had not adequately demonstrated how the release of the report would cause foreseeable harm to an interest protected by Exemption 8. The Court noted that the FOIA requires agencies to release any reasonably segregable portion of a record, even if an exemption covers an entire agency record. The Court determined that the DOJ had not satisfactorily explained why the release of a redacted version of the report would cause foreseeable harm to an interest protected by Exemption 8. Therefore, the Court vacated the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the DOJ and remanded the case for further consideration. View "Leopold v. DOJ" on Justia Law

Franklin Savings Bank v. Bordick

2024-02-29T08:18:30-08:00

In this case, Michael Bordick and Monica Bordick defaulted on a loan from Franklin Savings Bank, which was secured with a hunting cabin they owned on property they leased. The Bank filed a complaint for recovery of the cabin, and the Business and Consumer Docket ruled in favor of the Bank. The Bordicks appealed, arguing that the Bank did not make disclosures required by the Federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The Bank argued that the credit transaction was not subject to TILA. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court held that a credit transaction secured by real property in the form of a lease is not exempt from TILA under 15 U.S.C.A. § 1603(3). However, the court also found that the lower court applied an incorrect test to determine whether the loan was for commercial purposes and therefore exempt under § 1603(1). The court vacated the judgment in favor of the Bank and remanded the case for the lower court to determine the nature of the loan, looking at the totality of the circumstances. The court also clarified that although the leased land where the cabin was located was not the Bordicks' principal dwelling, the credit transaction is not exempt from TILA under § 1603(3) because it was secured with real property. View "Franklin Savings Bank v. Bordick" on Justia Law

MOORE v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

2024-02-23T07:58:40-08:00

The Supreme Court of Texas examined whether a lender could rescind a loan acceleration and reaccelerate the loan simultaneously, thereby resetting the foreclosure statute of limitations under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 16.038. The plaintiffs, Linda and Thomas Moore, defaulted on their home loan, leading to an acceleration of the loan by the lenders, Wells Fargo Bank and PHH Mortgage Corporation. The lenders subsequently issued notices rescinding the acceleration and then reaccelerating the loan. The Moores sued, arguing that the foreclosure statute of limitations had run out because the lenders' rescission notices also included notices of reacceleration. The federal district court ruled against the Moores, leading to their appeal and the subsequent certification of questions to the Supreme Court of Texas by the Fifth Circuit. The key question was whether simultaneous rescission and reacceleration could reset the limitations period under Section 16.038. The Supreme Court of Texas held that a rescission that complies with the statute resets the limitations period, even if it is combined with a notice of reacceleration. The court reasoned that the statute doesn't require the rescission notice to be separate from other notices, nor does it impose a waiting period between rescission and reacceleration. The court's ruling means that lenders can rescind and reaccelerate a loan simultaneously, thereby resetting the foreclosure statute of limitations. View "MOORE v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A." on Justia Law

NDIC v. Gould

2024-02-22T06:58:44-08:00

In this case, the Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of the North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC), acting through the North Dakota Housing Finance Agency (NDHFA), in a dispute over a lien on a property. The property in question was part of a housing development built by the Fendee Group, and was purchased by Carinne Gould, who obtained a mortgage through Guaranteed Rate, Inc., which was later assigned to the NDIC. After Gould defaulted on her payments, both the NDIC and Fendee filed liens on the property. Fendee argued that its liens were superior to the NDHFA's mortgage, but the court ruled that since the NDHFA's lien was perfected (or legally finalized) before Fendee's liens, the NDHFA held the superior lien. The court also rejected Fendee's claim of a "super lien," which would have given it priority over all other liens, and denied Fendee's request for attorney's fees. The court found that the dispute over the super lien was a question of first impression, meaning it was the first time such a question had come before the court, and therefore the appeal was not frivolous and did not warrant attorney’s fees. View "NDIC v. Gould" on Justia Law

Bryant v. Chupack

2024-02-21T13:30:37-08:00

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed a dispute involving the owners of two parcels of real estate in Chicago who contended that banks tried to collect notes and mortgages that belonged to different financial institutions. The state judiciary had ruled that the banks were entitled to foreclose on both parcels, but the properties had not yet been sold and no final judgments defining the debt were in place. The plaintiffs attempted to initiate federal litigation under the holding of Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., arguing that their case was still pending. However, the district court dismissed the case, citing the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which states that only the Supreme Court of the United States can review the judgments of state courts in civil suits. The Appeals court held that the application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine was incorrect in this case because the foreclosure litigation in Illinois was not yet "final". According to the court, the foreclosure process in Illinois continues until the property is sold, the sale is confirmed, and the court either enters a deficiency judgment or distributes the surplus. Since these steps had not occurred, the plaintiffs had not yet "lost the war", and thus parallel state and federal litigation could be pursued as per Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp. However, by the time the district court dismissed this suit, the state litigation about one parcel was over because a sale had occurred and been confirmed, and by the time the Appeals court heard oral argument that was true for the second parcel as well. The Appeals court stated that Illinois law forbids sequential litigation about the same claim even when the plaintiff in the second case offers novel arguments. The court found that the plaintiffs could have presented their constitutional arguments in the state court system and were not free to shift what is effectively an appellate argument to a different judicial system. The court also noted that Joel Chupack, the lead defendant, was the trial judge in the state case and was not a party to either state case. He did not claim the benefit of preclusion. Judge Chupack was found to be entitled to absolute immunity from damages, as he acted in a judicial capacity. The judgment of the district court was modified to reflect a dismissal with prejudice rather than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, and as so modified it was affirmed. View "Bryant v. Chupack" on Justia Law

Mohamed v. Bank of America, N.A.

2024-02-16T11:30:42-08:00

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Yagoub Mohamed, a self-employed mechanic, sued Bank of America, alleging that the bank's conduct and error-claim procedures violated the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and various state laws. Mohamed had applied for unemployment benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic and was found eligible to receive $14,644, which he elected to receive via a Bank of America-issued debit card. However, by the time he received and activated his card, the entire benefit amount had been spent on transactions he did not recognize. The bank opened an error claim and later froze his account due to possible fraud. The district court granted Bank of America's motion to dismiss Mohamed's federal claim, stating that the unemployment benefits he was to receive via a prepaid debit card were not protected by the EFTA. The court did not exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that the account in which Mohamed's benefits were held qualified as a "government benefit account" under the EFTA and its implementing regulations. As such, the court concluded that Mohamed had stated a claim under the Act. The court rejected the bank's arguments that it had established the account in question, asserting that the account was established by the state of Maryland, and the bank acted solely under its contract with the state. The court's holding is significant because it clarifies the scope of protection offered by the EFTA for government benefits distributed via prepaid debit cards, and it underlines the responsibilities of banks in managing such accounts. View "Mohamed v. Bank of America, N.A." on Justia Law

Societe Financial, LLC v. MJ Corporation

2024-02-16T10:31:25-08:00

In the case before the Supreme Court of the State of Alaska, MJ Corporation, the owner of an automated teller machine (ATM), sued Societe Financial, LLC, an ATM processor, and its owner, James Dainis, for breach of contract, conversion, and for piercing the corporate veil. MJ Corp. alleged that it had not been receiving its full share of transaction fees and reimbursement for vault cash dispensed by the ATM as per their agreement. The court reversed summary judgment on the breach of contract claim and piercing the corporate veil, as the processor presented genuine issues of material fact pertaining to those claims. The court held that while MJ Corp. presented admissible evidence of an implied contract and breach of the same, Dainis's affidavit raised a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the damages, thus barring summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The court affirmed the superior court’s decision to grant summary judgment on the conversion claim. It found that MJ Corp. satisfied its prima facie burden for summary judgment, and Societe's evidence was too conclusory to present a genuine dispute of material fact regarding conversion. Regarding the claim to pierce the corporate veil, the court found that there was insufficient evidence on summary judgment to hold Dainis personally liable or to pierce the corporate veils of Societe's subsidiary company and another company owned by Dainis. The case was remanded for further proceedings in line with the court's opinion. View "Societe Financial, LLC v. MJ Corporation" on Justia Law

United States v. Kelly

2024-02-08T13:00:23-08:00

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the United States in a case involving civil penalties for failure to file a Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR). The defendant, James J. Kelly Jr., was a U.S. citizen who had a bank account in Switzerland with a balance exceeding $10,000, which required him to file an FBAR with the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Failure to do so risks civil penalties. The government sued Kelly for willfully failing to timely file FBARs for 2013, 2014, and 2015. The district court granted summary judgment to the government. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that Kelly's failure to comply with his FBAR obligations was reckless, if not knowing. The court argued that Kelly had taken steps to intentionally evade his legal duties and acted with objective recklessness. Despite being aware of his FBAR obligations and participating in the IRS Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP), Kelly failed to ensure that the FBARs were submitted. His failure to consult with any professionals about his tax obligations and his considerable efforts to keep his account secret were further evidence of his willful violation of the Bank Secrecy Act. Thus, the court concluded that Kelly's failure to satisfy his FBAR requirements for the years 2013, 2014, and 2015 was a willful violation of the Bank Secrecy Act. View "United States v. Kelly" on Justia Law

Serenska v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

2024-02-08T08:10:00-08:00

This case concerns a foreclosure proceeding related to a property in Bristol, Rhode Island. The plaintiff, Steven Serenska, obtained a mortgage from Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and defaulted on his payments. Wells Fargo and HSBC Bank USA, National Association as Trustee, initiated foreclosure proceedings. The plaintiff filed a complaint, alleging that there was an ambiguity in the mortgage document and that he had not received proper notice before the foreclosure. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island held that there was no ambiguity in the mortgage contract. The court found that the notice of default sent to the plaintiff strictly complied with the requirements of the mortgage agreement. The court noted that the plaintiff's alleged prejudice (claiming he would have paid the sum due had he received notice of the deadline for reinstating the mortgage) was irrelevant in this context. The court also found that an issue raised by the plaintiff on appeal (concerning additional language in the notice of default) was not properly presented before the lower court and was therefore waived. The court thus affirmed the order of the Superior Court granting the defendants' motions to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. View "Serenska v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Land v. IU Credit Union

2024-02-01T14:32:53-08:00

The Indiana Supreme Court heard a case involving a dispute between Tonia Land and the IU Credit Union (IUCU). When Land became a customer at the credit union, she was given an account agreement that could be modified at any time. Later, when she registered for online banking, she accepted another agreement that allowed the IUCU to modify the terms and conditions of the services. In 2019, the IUCU proposed changes to these agreements, which would require disputes to be resolved through arbitration and prevent Land from initiating or participating in a class-action lawsuit. Land did not opt out of these changes within thirty days as required, which, according to the IUCU, made the terms binding. However, Land later filed a class-action lawsuit against the credit union, which attempted to compel arbitration based on the addendum. The court held that while the IUCU did provide Land with reasonable notice of its offer to amend the original agreements, Land's subsequent silence and inaction did not result in her assent to that offer, according to Section 69 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. The credit union petitioned for rehearing, claiming that the court failed to address certain legal authorities and arguments raised on appeal and in the transfer proceedings. Upon rehearing, the court affirmed its original decision, rejecting the credit union's arguments. However, the court also expressed a willingness to consider a different standard governing the offer and acceptance of unilateral contracts between businesses and consumers in future cases. The court found no merit in the credit union's arguments on rehearing and affirmed its original opinion in full. View "Land v. IU Credit Union" on Justia Law

In re Treasury Securities Auction Antitrust Litigation

2024-02-01T07:30:09-08:00

A group of 18 pension and retirement funds and other investors alleged that 10 large banks conspired to rig U.S. Treasury auctions and boycott the emergence of direct, "all-to-all" trading between buy-side investors on the secondary market for Treasuries. The alleged conspiracies violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The investors failed to demonstrate that the banks formed an anticompetitive agreement, which is necessary to plead their antitrust claims. The allegations of wrongful information-sharing amounted to inconsequential market chatter and their statistical analyses were not sufficiently focused on the defendant banks. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the lawsuit, agreeing that the investors failed to plausibly allege that the banks engaged in a conspiracy to rig Treasury auctions or to conduct a boycott on the secondary market. View "In re Treasury Securities Auction Antitrust Litigation" on Justia Law

The Bank of New York Mellon v. Gosset

2024-01-30T08:27:38-08:00

In 2006, Ronald A. Gosset borrowed $275,000 against his property, which he owned as a joint tenant with his daughters, Mellissa and Verity Gosset. Both daughters signed the mortgage but not the underlying note. When Ronald Gosset passed away and the loan was in default, The Bank of New York Mellon, as the current note and mortgage holder, moved for summary judgment and for permission to conduct a foreclosure sale on the property. The defendants argued that they were not in default since they never signed the note and bore no financial obligations to the plaintiff. Moreover, they contended that the claims against their deceased father couldn't be addressed until a representative for his estate was appointed. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island held that the plaintiff presented uncontested evidence demonstrating it is the holder of the note and mortgage, and that the note is currently in default. Furthermore, under the terms of the mortgage, the mortgage itself is also in default. The defendants, who are referred to as "Borrowers" in the mortgage, failed to present evidence challenging these assertions. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court, ruling that there were no genuine issues of material fact and the plaintiff is entitled to conduct a foreclosure sale on the property securing its promissory note. The court clarified that the judgment does not provide for an award of damages against any defendant, it only authorizes the plaintiff to foreclose its mortgage. View "The Bank of New York Mellon v. Gosset" on Justia Law

Hughes v. Bank of America

2024-01-17T07:37:45-08:00

In South Carolina, Phillip Francis Luke Hughes, on behalf of the estate of his late mother, Jane Hughes, sued Bank of America for fraud, fraudulent concealment, and breach of contract, alleging that the bank charged insurance premiums in connection with a home equity line of credit his parents obtained in 2006, even though they declined the insurance offer. The bank argued that the claims did not survive Jane Hughes's death, were barred by res judicata and the statute of limitations, and that their motion for sanctions was not premature. The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that the claims for fraud and fraudulent concealment survived Jane Hughes's death. However, it also held that all three claims were barred by the res judicata effect of rulings in related federal court litigation. The court affirmed as modified in part and reversed in part the lower court's decision. The court also affirmed the lower court's decision that the sanctions motion was not premature. The court further held that the claim for breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act survived Jane Hughes's death, but was also barred by res judicata. As for the statute of limitations issue, the court held that the statute of limitations had expired before the action was commenced and that the plaintiff was precluded from relitigating the equitable tolling issue. The court remanded Bank of America's sanctions motion to the lower court for disposition. View "Hughes v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

Finch v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

2024-01-11T08:05:53-08:00

In the case before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, the dispute involved U.S. Bank, N.A. (the Bank) and Charles D. Finch. The Bank had a mortgage on Finch's property due to a loan he had taken out. When Finch defaulted on the loan, the Bank initiated foreclosure proceedings. However, the Superior Court ruled in favor of Finch, finding that the Bank's notice of default did not comply with the requirements of the Maine foreclosure statute, specifically 14 M.R.S. § 6111. Following this, Finch asked the court to rule that the Bank's mortgage was unenforceable and to order the Bank to discharge the mortgage. The court agreed with Finch, citing the Maine Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Pushard v. Bank of America. The Bank appealed this decision, arguing that the Pushard decision should be overturned, and that even if it cannot foreclose on the property, it should not be required to discharge the mortgage. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court, revisiting its decision in Pushard, determined that a lender cannot accelerate a loan balance or commence a foreclosure action without having the statutory and contractual right to do so. This effectively overruled the holding in Pushard that a lender could accelerate the note balance by filing a foreclosure action, even if they lacked the statutory right to do so. The court found that when a lender fails to prove it has issued a valid notice of default or that the borrower breached the contract, the parties are returned to the positions they held before the filing of the action. Therefore, a subsequent foreclosure action based on a different notice of default and a different allegation of default would assert a different claim and would not be barred. The court ultimately vacated the judgment requiring the Bank to discharge the mortgage and remanded the case for entry of a judgment in the Bank's favor on Finch's complaint. The judgment dismissing the Bank's unjust enrichment counterclaim was affirmed. The court concluded that while a lender must strictly comply with the statutory notice requirements in a foreclosure action, a borrower is not automatically entitled to a "free house" if the lender makes a mistake in the notice of default. View "Finch v. U.S. Bank, N.A." on Justia Law