Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

In 2007 Rufini purchased his Sonoma residence with a $600,000 loan. Rufini and his fiancée lived in the home until they separated. In June 2009, CitiMortgage approved Rufini for a loan modification and told him he would receive a permanent modification after making timely trial payments of $2787.93 in July, August and September. Rufini timely made the payments at the modified rate through December. In January, 2010, CitiMortgage informed him that his permanent loan modification agreement would be ready in three days. Three months later, with still no written agreement, he rented out his house to offset expenses In August Rufini learned that Citibank was denying his loan modification, because the home was not owner-occupied. He attempted to make timely mortgage payments at the modified level, but CitiMortgage returned his checks. Rufini received a notice of default in September 2010, followed by a notice of trustee’s sale scheduled for January 2011. He contacted CitiMortgage and obtained its agreement to delay the foreclosure. CitiMortgage assigned Semien to Rufini’s account, but Rufini was unable to contact him on the phone for three and a half weeks. On April 11 Rufini was informed his modification was “in final state of completion.” On May 4, his house was sold at auction. The trial court dismissed Rufini’s complaint alleging “breach of contract—promissory estoppel,” breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unfair business practices, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation. The appeals court reversed and remanded the claims of negligent representation and under Business and Professions Code section 17200, the unfair competition law. View "Rufini v. CitiMortgage" on Justia Law

SFG, a Texas firm specializing in distressed‐asset investing, bought a loan portfolio from McFarland State Bank for $1.27 million (28.8% of the face value of the debt). Materials provided by McFarland’s agent indicated that the portfolio was secured by 19 real estate properties in Wisconsin. Both parties were well represented during negotiations. The Sale Agreement provided limited remedies in the event of a breach and disclaimed all other remedies. Soon after purchasing the portfolio, SFG learned that three of the 19 collateral properties that supposedly secured the loans had been released before the sale. SFG contacted McFarland; McFarland disputed liability. Months later, SFG sued, seeking damages beyond the remedies provided in the contract. Applying the contractual remedies limitation, a formula that resulted in zero recovery under the circumstances, the district court granted judgment for McFarland. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Except in the most extraordinary circumstances, courts hold sophisticated parties to the terms of their bargain. View "S. Fin. Grp. LLC v. McFarland State Bank" on Justia Law

Goodwill filed suit against PNC seeking a declaratory judgment that it does not owe a prepayment charge in excess of $300,000 under the terms of its agreement with PNC. The court affirmed the district court's conclusion that Goodwill owed PNC a prepayment fee. Because Goodwill gave notice of its intent to make prepayment during the ten-year period of the loan during which interest on the outstanding principal was accruing at the Initial Rate of 4.79 percent per year, Goodwill owed a prepayment charge. View "Land of Lincoln Goodwill Indus. v. PNC Bank, NA" on Justia Law

In 2007 the McDonalds opened a J.P. Morgan Bank investment account and a brokerage account with its affiliate, J.P. Morgan Securities (JPMS). Different contracts governed the accounts. The Bank managed the money in the investment account, while the McDonalds directed the funds in their JPMS brokerage account. By the end of 2008, the McDonalds had lost $1.5 million from the Bank investment account. The money held in the JPMS account produced a profit. The McDonalds filed an arbitration demand, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, self-dealing, and other misrepresentation and mismanagement. They did not name the Bank, but named only JPMS and Bank employees who set up and oversaw the accounts. The McDonalds claimed that the employees ignored their stated investment goals by putting nearly all their money in an illiquid proprietary hedge fund. The claim charged JPMS (not the Bank) with vicarious liability for failing to supervise. JPMS is registered with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, as are the employees. FINRA is an industry self-regulatory organization, and under its rules JPMS and the employees were subject to arbitration at the McDonalds’ request, an obligation reiterated in the contract governing the JPMS account. The Bank is not a member of FINRA; the Bank’s contract did not provide for arbitration. The Bank sought to prevent arbitration. The district court dismissed, finding that the Bank lacked standing to block the arbitration to which it was not a party and that the two employees were indispensable parties. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The Bank has standing to sue because the arbitration would violate a forum-selection clause in its contract with the McDonalds. The McDonalds cannot avoid that clause by naming only an affiliate and the employees, who are not necessary parties.View "J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. McDonald" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the dismissal of her complaint alleging that defendants fraudulently procured a mortgage on her home, and thereafter sought to foreclose on that mortgage, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq., the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq., the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq., the New York General Business Law, N. Y. Gen. Bus. Law 349, and common law. The district court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issues of liability and granted the motions of defendants for summary judgment dismissing the claims against them, ruling that, because plaintiff failed to disclose these claims in a 2006 proceeding under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, her present suit was barred for lack of standing or by collateral estoppel. The court considered all of the parties' arguments and, except to the extent indicated, have found them to be without merit. The court affirmed the judgment in regards to the denial of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment in her favor and the grant of defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing her claims under RICO, ECOA, New York Business Law 349, and for negligent misrepresentation. The court vacated so much of the judgment as dismissed plaintiff's claims for violation of TILA and for common-law fraud, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Crawford v. Franklin Credit Management Corp." on Justia Law

Borrowers applied from a home mortgage loan from Lender. During the transaction, a loan officer made an incorrect statement about lien priority. Borrowers later filed breach of fiduciary and negligent misrepresentation claims against Lender, alleging that the junior status of Lender’s lien decreased the marketability and value of their home and exposed them to increased liability. The trial court granted Lender’s motion for summary judgment on all claims. The Court of Appeals concluded that material issues of fact barred summary judgment on Borrowers’ breach of fiduciary duty claim, reasoning that Lender’s assurance of a first priority lien on Borrowers’ new mortgage loan was an act beyond the scope of a normal debtor-creditor relationship. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court correctly granted summary judgment for Lender on both claims where no fiduciary duty existed and where Plaintiffs did not forecast evidence that they made a reasonable inquiry into the validity of the loan officer’s statements. View "Dallaire v. Bank of Am., N.A." on Justia Law

GE Plaintiffs filed suit against Worthington under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA), Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code 24.009(a), seeking to void transfers that Worthington received from the GE Plaintiffs' predecessor-in-interest, allegedly with notice of the transfers' fraudulent nature. The jury found in favor of the GE Plaintiffs and the district court entered judgment for the amount of the transfers. The court concluded that the factual commonality in this case did not suffice to count the contractual dispute settlement against TUFTA's limit on recovery for a single avoidance "claim," or to render Citibank a joint tortfeasor for one-satisfaction rule purposes. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Worthington a settlement credit for the settlement proceeds that the GE Plaintiffs received from Citibank. The court rejected Worthington's argument that the district court erred as a matter of law in interpreting TUFTA's good faith defense as an objective standard. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "GE Capital Commercial, Inc., et al. v. Wright & Wright, Inc." on Justia Law

Choice filed suit against BancorpSouth for lost funds and BancorpSouth counterclaimed for attorney's fees. The court concluded that the loss of funds from Choice's account falls on Choice because there was no genuine dispute of fact as to whether BanCorpSouth's security procedures - which included password protection, daily transfer limits, device authentication, and dual control - were commercially reasonable; BancorpSouth met its burden of establishing that it accepted the payment order at issue in good faith; and BanCorpSouth complied with procedures or Choice's instructions. The court also concluded that the portion of the indemnification provision relating to attorney's fees was not inconsistent with Article 4A of the UCC and that BancorpSouth may seek attorney's fees from Choice under this provision. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to BancorpSouth, reversed the district court's dismissal of BancorpSouth's counterclaim on the pleadings, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Choice Escrow and Land Title v. BancorpSouth Bank" on Justia Law

In 2006, Michael and Connie Jo Zimmerman obtained two separate commercial loans from Eagle National Bank, the predecessor in interest to Customers Bank. The Zimmermans later defaulted on these loans and entered into a forbearance agreement. In addition to the Forbearance Agreement, the Zimmermans each executed a Disclosure for the Confession of Judgment acknowledging that a Confession of Judgment provision in the Forbearance Agreement had been called to their attention, that they understood that the provision permitted Customers Bank to enter judgment against them without notice or opportunity for a hearing, and that the waiver of the right to notice and a hearing was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. The Forbearance Agreement also provided that all notices, requests, demands, and other communications were to be sent to the Zimmermans at an address in Dover, Delaware with a copy sent to their attorney. Based on the Warrant of Attorney to Confess Judgment in the Forbearance Agreement, Customers Bank filed a complaint seeking the entry of a judgment by confession against the Zimmermans. The Zimmermans opposed the entry of a judgment by confession and a hearing was held where the Zimmermans argued, among other things, that at the time the Forbearance Agreement was executed they were residents of Florida and that Customers Bank had not complied with the requirements for entry of judgment by confession against a non-resident under Rule 58.1. The Zimmermans also argued that they did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive their right to notice and a hearing before judgment could be entered against them. After deliberation, the superior court found the Zimmermans’ waiver of their right to notice and a hearing had been knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and entered judgment by confession against the Zimmermans. The Zimmermans appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Crothall, et al. v. Zimmerman, et al." on Justia Law

Merchants Bank appealed a Circuit Court judgment in favor of Elizabeth Head on Merchants Bank's claim against her alleging breach of a promissory note. After the 2008 promissory note at issue was executed, Merchants Bank wired the $400,000 to Elizabeth's husband, David Head's, personal account. David testified that he then wrote a check distributing the funds to his real-estate-development company, Head Companies, LLC. The Heads renewed the 2008 promissory note in March 2009 and again in March 2010, in August 2010, in February 2011, and, finally, in July 2011. With the exception of the July 2011 renewal, each renewal was signed on page three by both David and Elizabeth. A box on page two was left blank. On the initial version of the July 2011 renewal of the note, however, Elizabeth signed in both the box on page two, indicating that she intended to "give [Merchants Bank] a security interest" in the Heads' personal residence, and at the end of the document on page three. signature on page two of the initial July 2011 note was "a mistake in the nature of a scrivener's error and [Merchants] Bank subsequently had the Heads execute a corrected note, which they did knowingly and voluntarily." Elizabeth presented no evidence to the contrary. The "corrected note" bore the same date as the initial July 2011 note and, like all the previous renewals, was signed by both David and Elizabeth on page three of the document only. The box on page two of the corrected July 2011 note was left blank. The Heads defaulted on the promissory note in April 2012. In September 2012, Merchants Bank sued the Heads, alleging breach of the promissory note and attaching to the complaint the initial July 2011 note as evidence of the debt. David did not answer the complaint, and Merchants Bank obtained a default judgment against him in the amount of $415,142.57 plus interest on the judgment. Elizabeth did answer the complaint, arguing that the note was unenforceable against her because she had signed the initial July 2011 note only to give a security interest in her and David's residence not "for the purpose of agreeing to pay the debt evidenced thereby" and because she had not received consideration for her signature on the note. Merchants Bank moved for a summary judgment against Elizabeth. That motion was denied. After a bench trial in March 2013, the circuit court entered a final judgment in favor of Elizabeth. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that Elizabeth renewed her obligations under the 2008 promissory note in the capacity of a maker in July 2011, and that her obligations under the 2008 promissory note were supported by valid consideration. It was undisputed that she and David defaulted on their obligations under the corrected July 2011 note. Thus, Elizabeth was liable to Merchants Bank on its claim of breach of promissory note, and the circuit court erred in entering a judgment in her favor. View "Merchants Bank v. Head " on Justia Law