Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 2005, the Robertsons borrowed $192,000, secured by a mortgage on their Memphis home. The note was bundled into a mortgage-backed trust with U.S. Bank as designated supervisor; Wilson as trustee, responsible for conducting any foreclosure sale; and MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) as the beneficiary. MERS acts as an agent for the owners as mortgage notes are transferred on the secondary market.The Robertsons stopped making payments in 2011. MERS assigned the deed to U.S. Bank. In 2014, Wilson sent the Robertsons a Notice of Trustee’s Sale. The Robertsons responded with a “notice of rescission,” alleging that U.S. Bank had violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and lacked standing to foreclose, then sued U.S. Bank and Wilson in state court. U.S. Bank removed the case to federal court, where the Robertsons agreed to dismiss Wilson. The district court granted U.S. Bank summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that Wilson waived its right to remove the case; U.S. Bank failed to comply with a TILA notice requirement, giving the Robertsons the right to rescind the loan; U.S. Bank lacked standing to enforce the note because it never showed it had a stake in the loan; and U.S. Bank forfeited its right to foreclose when it failed to raise the claim in its answer to the Robertsons’ complaint. View "Robertson v. U.S. Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

In 2002, the Cartees placed a deed of trust on their Nashville home to secure a loan from Citizens Bank. Although the recorded deed's acknowledgement declares that it was acknowledged in Alabama, it was executed and acknowledged in Tennessee. A month later, the Citizens Deed of Trust was re-recorded; the acknowledgment was revised, with a note declaring that “THIS DOCUMENT IS BEING RERECORDED TO ADD THE DERIVATION CLAUSE AND TO CORRECT THE NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT.” The rerecorded deed was not reexecuted or acknowledged by the Cartees, nor did they have any knowledge of the rerecording. In 2004, the Cartees and Regions Bank entered into a credit agreement secured by a second deed of trust, also recorded. After 2005, federal tax liens, judgment liens, and a mechanic’s lien were recorded against the property. Years later, the Cartees defaulted on their mortgage loan. The Cartees defaulted on several forebearance agreements; Diana Cartee filed for bankruptcy. A foreclosure sale resulted in proceeds that satisfied the debt to Citizens, with a surplus of $281,632.74. In an interpleader action, the court awarded Regions the surplus proceeds and granted the successful foreclosure bidder summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the Cartees could not attempt to invalidate the foreclosure by challenging the validity of the bidder’s deed, based on the “defect” in the Citizens Deed. View "Watson v. Cartee" on Justia Law

U.S. Bank participates in an FHA-backed mortgage insurance program that encourages lending to high-risk borrowers. U.S. Bank had to certify that it would meet certain requirements, and each time it requested an insurance payment, had to certify that it had followed 24 C.F.R. 203.500 requirements, including engaging in “loss mitigation” measures, such as attempting to arrange a face-to-face meeting with the defaulting borrower, before foreclosing. According to ABLE, an Ohio non-profit organization, U.S. Bank did not satisfy the loss mitigation requirement, wrongfully foreclosed on 22,000 homes, and wrongfully collected $2.3 billion in federal insurance benefits. ABLE alleged violation of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729. The Department of Justice declined to intervene. The district court found that ABLE premised its case on information that had already been publicly disclosed, precluding it from bringing suit as a qui tam plaintiff. The Sixth Circuit agreed, noting a 2011 consent order between U.S. Bank and the government, requiring U.S. Bank to implement reforms, including measures “to ensure [that] reasonable and good faith efforts, consistent with applicable Legal Requirements, are engaged in Loss Mitigation and foreclosure prevention for delinquent loans,” and a 2011 foreclosure practices review by three federal agencies, which noted that U.S. Bank had failed to take various mitigation measures. View "ABLE v. U.S. Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

In 2003, the Burniacs executed a mortgage on their home in Plymouth, Michigan to secure a loan from WaMu. Wells Fargo acted as servicer of the mortgage and sent Burniac monthly mortgage statements. WaMu assigned ownership of Burniac’s mortgage to Wells Fargo in 2007. Burniac continued to receive statements from Wells Fargo. WaMu filed for bankruptcy in 2008. Burniac sent his mortgage payments to Wells Fargo for several years, but eventually stopped making payments. Wells Fargo initiated foreclosure proceedings;a foreclosure sale was scheduled for May 23, 2013. Burniac filed suit to prevent the sale, arguing that the assignment was invalid. The state court purportedly entered a default judgment against the bank and preliminarily enjoined the foreclosure sale. Wells Fargo then removed the action to a federal district court, which refused to remand and later entered summary judgment for the bank. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the purported state court default prevented the federal court from entering summary judgment and required a remand. Burniac failed to demonstrate that the alleged assignment irregularities will subject him to double liability, placed him in a worse position to keep his property, or prejudiced him in any other way. View "Burniac v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

In 2004, the Baumans purchased Ohio property with a loan from Taylor, secured by a mortgage that listed Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems as nominee on behalf of Taylor. In previous litigation involving the parties, the court found the loan was sold to Hudson in 2004. BAC became the loan servicer in 2008. In 2010, BAC brought a foreclosure action in state court. Under Ohio law, a party who seeks to foreclose on a mortgage must prove that “it is the current holder of the note and mortgage.” At the time, Hudson was the note holder, but BAC falsely represented that it had standing. BAC later voluntarily dismissed the case. The Baumans sued BAC’s successor, Bank of America, and Hudson alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692e. The district court rejected the suit, finding that the defendants were not a “debt collector” under FDCPA because they acquired their interests in the debt prior to the Baumans's default. The Baumans filed a new complaint requesting a declaration barring a future foreclosure action and to quiet title. The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding that defendants were not required to bring a foreclosure action as a compulsory counterclaim to the FDCPA action. View "Bauman v. Bank of America, N.A." on Justia Law

Brown owed student loan debt, which he alleges Van Ru Credit was retained to collect. A Van Ru employee left a voicemail at Brown’s business that stated the caller’s and Van Ru’s names, a return number, and a reference number. The caller asked that someone from the business’s payroll department return her call. Brown sued Van Ru for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692c(b), alleging that the voicemail was a communication “in connection with the collection of any debt” with a third party . The district court granted Van Ru judgment on the pleadings. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The voicemail left at Brown’s business was not a “communication” as defined in the Act. A communication must “convey[] . . . information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium,” and the voicemail message did not convey such information. View "Brown v. Van Ru Credit Corp." on Justia Law

In 2005, the Harrises bought tens of thousands of shares in Bancorp through a TD Ameritrade account. Six years later, the Harrises sought to hold some of their Bancorp stock in another form, registered in their name and reflected in a physical copy of a certificate signifying their ownership. TD Ameritrade refused to convert the Harrises’ form of ownership, stating that all Bancorp stock was in a “global lock,” prohibiting activity in the stock, including changing the Harrises’ form of ownership. The lock was created because someone had fraudulently created hundreds of millions of invalid shares of Bancorp stock. The Harrises sued, alleging that TD Ameritrade had violated SEC Rule 15c3-3 and Nebraska’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code. The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal.. Neither the SEC Rule nor Nebraska’s Commercial Code creates a private right of action to vindicate the alleged problem. View "Harris v. TD Ameritrade, Inc." on Justia Law

Churn, the owner of a Tennessee construction company, was convicted of seven counts of bank fraud stemming from two schemes in which he received bank loans ostensibly to construct houses, but performed little to no work. The district court sentenced him to 33 months in prison and ordered restitution of $237,950.50. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the district court made evidentiary errors concerning admission of an email statement, admission of testimony concerning a permit, and admission of evidence about another transaction, and that the amount of restitution exceeded a statutory maximum under the Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663A. View "United States v. Churn" on Justia Law

In 2008, plaintiffs obtained a loan from Quicken and granted a mortgage on their property to Quicken’s nominee, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, “MERS.” The note and mortgage ultimately were conveyed to Bank of America. Plaintiffs defaulted. Bank of America foreclosed by advertisement under Mich. Comp. Laws 600.3201. The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, “Freddie Mac,” purchased the property at a foreclosure sale. The plaintiffs did not exercise their “equity of redemption” within the six-month statutory redemption period under Michigan law. Freddie Mac initiated eviction. In their counter-complaint, plaintiffs argued that the foreclosure was fraudulent and violated Michigan law because there was no chain of title evidencing ownership by Bank of America, which, therefore, did not have standing to foreclose; Freddie Mac was negligent for failing to evaluate plaintiffs’ loan under the Home Affordable Modification Program; the foreclosure and subsequent eviction were “wrongful” under Michigan law; and Freddie Mac violated their due process rights because its status as a government actor precluded foreclosure by advertisement. The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims, reasoning that any negligence was not attributable to Freddie Mac and compliance with Michigan’s foreclosure-by-advertisement procedures satisfied the requirements of the Due Process Clause. View "Rush v. Freddie Mac" on Justia Law

Bank of America loaned Leipzig $960,000, secured by a deed of trust on a Brentwood, Tennessee residence. Leipzig assigned his rights in the residence to a trust, which leased it to Johannessen in 2010. The lease had a five-year term and an option to buy. Johannessen exercised that option in 2011, but otherwise did not act to obtain title. Leipzig stopped making payments. In 2013, Johannessen assigned his lease and option rights to Anarion; the residence was in foreclosure. Published foreclosure notices stated that Brock was a “substitute trustee” for purposes of the loan “by an instrument duly recorded.” Anarion alleges there was no such “instrument,” and, based on that putative “misrepresentation,” sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692. The court dismissed, holding that Anarion is not a “person” under the Act, which states that “any debt collector who fails to comply with any provision of this subchapter with respect to any person is liable.” The Sixth Circuit reversed, reasoning that section 1692a(3), defines “consumer” to mean “any natural person,” suggesting that, when Congress meant to refer only to natural persons, it did so expressly. The court noted that its decision does not mean that Anarion can bring suit under the FDCPA. View "Anarion Invs., LLC v. Carrington Mortg. Servs., LLC" on Justia Law