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

Klie purchased property with financing from Coldwell Banker, which assigned its rights to the Federal National Mortgage Corporation (Fannie Mae) but continued to service the loan. The assignment was never recorded. In 2007, servicing rights transferred to JP Morgan. Coldwell Banker assigned its rights in the note and mortgage (none) to JP Morgan, which reassigned to Fannie Mae. Chase, an arm of JP Morgan, serviced the loan until Klie died. With the loan in default, Chase’s law firm, RACJ, prepared an assignment of the note and mortgage that purported to establish Chase’s right to foreclose and filed a foreclosure actionf, naming Glazer, a beneficiary of Klie’s estate. The court entered a decree of foreclosure, but later vacated and demanded that RACJ produce the original note. Chase dismissed the foreclosure without prejudice. Glazer filed suit, alleging that Chase and RACJ violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692, and Ohio law by falsely stating that Chase owned the note and mortgage, improperly scheduling a foreclosure sale, and refusing to verify the debt upon request. Chase and RACJ moved to dismiss. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that mortgage foreclosure is debt collection under the Act. View "Glazer v. Chase Home Fin. LLC" on Justia Law

Wells Fargo foreclosed on Frank’s home by advertisement. Frank is deceased and Mitan is the estate representative. The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation purchased the home at a sheriff’s sale in February 2010, and the redemption period expired six months later. Two weeks prior to expiration, Mitan sued, claiming that the foreclosure was contrary to Michigan law. The district court dismissed. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the district court did not establish an adequate record to determine whether Wells Fargo complied with the law. If the foreclosure was void, Mitan’s rights were not terminated at the end of the redemption period. When a lender wishes to foreclose by advertisement on a principal residence, it must provide the borrower with notice designating a person whom the borrower may contact to negotiate a loan modification. Mich. Comp. Laws 600.3205a(1). If the borrower requests negotiation, the lender’s designated person may request certain documents. If negotiations fail, the designated person is required to apply statutory calculations to determine whether the borrower qualifies for a loan modification. If the borrower qualifies, the lender may not foreclose by advertisement unless the designated person offers a modification agreement that the borrower fails to timely return. View "Mitan v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp." on Justia Law

In 2005, the Coyers entered into a mortgage agreement with Option One to purchase property in Linwood, Michigan. Subsequently, HSBC purchased the mortgage. After the Coyers allegedly stopped making payment to HSBC in 2010, HSBC began foreclosure proceedings pursuant to the mortgage contract’s “power of sale” clause. The Coyers filed a complaint asserting numerous allegations concerning alleged illegal conduct routinely practiced in the mortgage industry. They claimed: breach of fiduciary duty; negligence; common law fraud; breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; violation of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1601; and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of HSBC. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Coyer v. HSBC Mortg. Servs/, Inc." on Justia Law

In 1992, Haddad purchased a condominium. He timely paid association assessments and lived at the home until 2005. Since then, the condominium has remained vacant or leased. In October 2008, Haddad received a collection letter from the firm, representing the condominium association, stating that Haddad he was in default on $898 of association dues and that if the amount was not paid within 30 days, the association would commence proceedings for a lien against the condominium. In December 2008, Haddad received a second notice. Haddad timely responded to both, requesting verification of the debt. The firm did not verify the debts and recorded a Notice of Lien in May 2009. The condominium association eventually corrected its records. The lien was discharged in 2010. Haddad sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692, and the Michigan Collection Practices Act (445.251), alleging violations of prohibitions on use of false, deceptive, or misleading representation and continuing collection of a disputed debt without verification of a debt incurred for personal rather than business purposes. The district court granted the firm summary judgment, holding that the assessments were not debts under the statutes because the property was a rental. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded. View "Haddad v. Alexander, Zelmanski, Danner & Fioritto, PLLC" on Justia Law

Cleveland sued financial institutions, alleging that by securitizing subprime mortgages and foreclosing on houses, defendants allegedly contributed to declines in property values, shrinking tax base, and increased criminal activity, causing a public nuisance. The district court dismissed, finding preemption by state law and failure to demonstrate that defendants unreasonably interfered with a public right or were the proximate cause of alleged harm. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Cleveland filed another suit in state court against non-diverse institutions, alleging public-nuisance, violation of the Ohio Corrupt Activities Act, (RICO analogue), by inaccurately claiming title to mortgages and notes in foreclosures in violation of Ohio Rev. Code 2923.32. Cleveland also sought to recover (Ohio Revised Code 715.261) costs incurred maintaining or demolishing foreclosed houses. While the case was pending, banks sought a declaratory judgment that Cleveland’s public-nuisance claim was preempted by the National Bank Act and an injunction against the suits. The district court suggested that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed. Subsequently, the state court dismissed Cleveland’s public-nuisance and OCAA claims; appeal is pending. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in the first case, so that declaratory relief is now moot. The Sixth Circuit reversed with respect to the second suit; the district court had jurisdiction.View "Chase Bank USA, N.A. v. City of Cleveland" on Justia Law

In 2007, Fifth Third loaned Buford $406,000 in exchange for a mortgage on property that Buford purportedly owned. Fifth Third obtained a title-insurance policy from Direct Title, an issuing agent for Chicago Title. Direct Title was a fraudulent agent; its sole “member” was the actual title owner of the property and conspired with Buford to use that single property as collateral to obtain multiple loans from different lenders. When creditors foreclosed on the property in state court, Fifth Third intervened and asked Chicago Title to defend and compensate. Chicago Title refused to defend or indemnify. Chicago Title sought to avoid summary judgment, indicating that it needed discovery on the questions whether “Fifth Third failed to follow objectively reasonable and prudent underwriting standards” in processing Buford’s loan application and whether Direct Title had authority to issue the title-insurance policy. The district court granted Fifth Third summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, noting that “When a party comes to us with nine grounds for reversing the district court, that usually means there are none.”View "Fifth Third Mortg. Co. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law

T-Mobile proposed to build a cellular tower in an area of West Bloomfield Township, Michigan, that had a coverage gap. After deciding that sites in the township zoning ordinance’s cellular tower overlay zones were infeasible, T-Mobile decided that the best option would be to construct a facility at a utility site on property owned by Detroit Edison. The facility contained an existing 50-foot pole, which T-Mobile wanted to replace with a 90-foot pole disguised to look like a pine tree with antennas fashioned as branches. The township denied special approval. The district court entered partial summary judgment in favor of T-Mobile in a suit under the Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. 332. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. Five stated reasons for denial of the application were not supported by substantial evidence and the denial had “the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services” in violation of 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). View "T-Mobile Central, LLC v. Twp. of W. Bloomfield" on Justia Law

Frankenmuth, “Michigan’s Little Bavaria,” is a tourist destination, famous for Bavarian-themed stores, family-style restaurants, and the world’s largest year-round Christmas store. Plaintiffs own a 37-acre tract just outside city limits. A 2003 property-tax appraisal valued the land at $95,000. It has been used as farmland for nearly 100 years. Under a joint agreement with the township, about 15 acres on the western portion of the property was zoned as Commercial Local Planned Unit Development, with the remaining 22 acres designated as Residential Planned Unit Development. In 2005, the plaintiffs agreed to sell 23.55 acres to Wal-Mart for $125,000 per acre. Wal-Mart had 180 days to determine the feasibility of its plan and was permitted to, for any reason, cancel and receive a refund of the $50,000 deposit.” The city first enacted a moratorium and then rezoned a relatively small area, including the property. Wal-Mart cancelled the agreement and a jury awarded plaintiffs $3.6 million for selective zoning. The Sixth Circuit reversed. The district court erred in finding that a reasonable jury could conclude that the city harbored animus against the plaintiffs, as opposed to animus against Wal-Mart and gave inaccurate instructions on damages. View "Loesel v. City of Frankenmuth" on Justia Law

A Stonefire loan officer, contacted the Lees and convinced them that they could refinance and lower their mortgage payment, get rid of private mortgage insurance, and consolidate credit card debt. They signed papers that they did not read, agreeing to pay Stonefire a brokerage fee of $7000.00 and a processing fee of $995, and that the exact amount of “additional compensation,” would be disclosed at closing. The additional compensation was the “Yield Spread Premium,” to lower up-front closing costs. The lender paid a Premium of 3.5 percent, which increased the interest rate on the loan. The Lees received a variable rate a five percent higher than the fixed rate on their prior loan. At closing, they signed a HUD-1 settlement statement that described a “[p]remium pd to broker by lender to Stonefire” of $5670 paid outside closing. The district court granted summary judgment to the lender on conspiracy and civil fraud claims and to Stonefire on the claim of civil conspiracy. The Lees and Stonefire settled. With respect to the lender, the Sixth Circuit affirmed as to fraud, but reversed on the civil conspiracy claim; Ohio case law prohibits lenders from knowingly conspiring with brokers to conceal mortgage costs, from borrowers. View "Lee v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued behalf of themselves and all other purchasers of title insurance in Ohio from March 2004 through the present. They alleged that 22 title-insurance companies and the Ohio Title Insurance Rating Bureau violated antitrust laws (Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1; Ohio Rev. Code 1331.01) by conspiring to set unreasonably high title-insurance rates. The title-insurance companies filed rates with the Ohio Department of Insurance through OTIRB, a properly licensed rating bureau. Plaintiffs claimed that it was impossible for the Department to review the reasonableness of the rates collectively set by defendants because those rates are based principally on undisclosed costs, which allegedly included “kickbacks, referral fees and other expenses designed to solicit business referrals.” The district court dismissed, holding that the filed-rate doctrine applied to title insurance, and foreclosed claims for monetary damages and that Ohio statutes (Title XXXIX) completely foreclosed federal and state antitrust claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, noting that there are at least 45 similar cases, nationwide. The filed-rate doctrine, which limits antitrust remedies available to private parties, is irrelevant because the actions are barred by state law. View "Katz v. Fidelity Nat'l Title Ins." on Justia Law