Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant seeking a declaration that it had a superior lien on funds to which Defendant also claimed an entitlement. Plaintiff brought two counts against Defendant, one requesting a declaration that Plaintiff was entitled to the immediate release and receipt of all funds at issue and the other alleging conversion. Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and for failure to join an indispensable party. The Court of Chancery dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding (1) Plaintiff’s application for declaratory relief should be heard in superior court because that court has the power and ability to resolve a lien dispute and because Plaintiff has an adequate and complete remedy at law; and (2) Plaintiff’s second count for conversion asserts a legal right and implicates a legal remedy, and therefore, the Court of Chancery lacks subject matter jurisdiction to address it. View "The Bancorp Bank v. Cross & Simon, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2011 Lehman filed suit, claiming Gateway was obliged to make good on mortgage loans that Lehman’s subsidiary purchased almost 10 years earlier from Arlington Capital. In 2007 contracts, Arlington agreed to indemnify Lehman for losses on those loans. The following year, Arlington sold its assets to Gateway. The district court held that although it was clear Arlington was liable to Lehman on three loans, it was unclear whether Gateway was liable for Arlington’s debts and a trial was necessary to determine whether a de facto merger had taken place between Gateway and Arlington. After considering the evidence, the court concluded that a de facto merger had occurred and held Gateway for $450,000 plus interest. The Third Circuit affirmed. Gateway violated FRCP 10 when it failed to include in the appellate record a transcript necessary to evaluate its principal claim, so that claim forfeited. Gateway’s other claims lacked merit. View "Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc v. Gateway Funding Diversified Mortg. Servs., LP" on Justia Law

In 2013, the Superior Court granted Branch Banking and Trust Company's ("BB&T") motion for summary judgment on its foreclosure and breach of contract claims. In 2014, the Superior Court entered a final judgment order awarding damages to BB&T. The Eids failed to file a timely notice of appeal of thatorder. Instead, a little over two months after the entry of the final judgment order, the Eids filed a motion with the Superior Court under Rule 60(b) seeking vacatur of the final judgment order, contending that their counsel never received actual notice of the final judgment order. The Superior Court granted the Eids' motion to vacate. Then trial court entered a new final judgment order from which the Eids could file a timely notice of appeal. BB&T filed an appeal from the Superior Court's grant of the Rule 60(b) motion to vacate, and the Eids filed a cross-appeal of the Superior Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of BB&T. BB&T raises three issues on appeal: (1) that pursuant to Rule 77(d), the trial court lacked authority to grant the motion to vacate the final judgment order; (2) that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it applied a vague and undefined "interest of justice" standard to the motion to vacate; and (3) that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion to vacate because the Eids failed to establish that they were entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(1) or (b)(6). On cross-appeal, the Eids also raised three issues: (1) that BB&T lacked standing to institute a foreclosure; (2) that the affidavit supporting the motion for summary judgment was defective; and (3) that BB&T failed to demonstrate that there were no genuine issues of material fact. After review, the Supreme Court agreed with BB&T that the trial court improperly granted the motion to vacate the final judgment, and reversed that decision. View "Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Eid" on Justia Law

In 2007, MTB Enterprises, Inc. obtained a $17 million construction loan from financial institution ANB Financial. ANB thereafter failed, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation transferred the construction loan to ADC Venture 2011-2, LLC. In 2012, MTB filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho against ADC Venture alleging that ADC Venture assumed the obligations of ANB Financial and was therefore liable for breach of contract and damages from MTB’s failed construction venture. The district court dismissed MTB’s claims. The Ninth Circuit dismissed MTB’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding (1) the rule set forth in the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 that a claimant must sue in the district court where the failed bank’s principal place of business was located or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is a jurisdictional limitation on federal court review; and (2) because the United States District Court for the District of Idaho lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case from the start, the case must be dismissed. View "MTB Enters., Inc. v. ADC Venture 2011-2, LLC" on Justia Law

The Boyces signed a $1.155 million promissory note payable to Pacific Mortgage, secured by a deed of trust on their Santa Barbara house. Pacific Mortgage endorsed the note to Option One, which endorsed the note in blank and put it in a mortgage investment pool, of which Wells Fargo was trustee. Pacific Mortgage assigned the deed of trust to Option One. The trust deed was later assigned to Wells Fargo. Boyces stopped making payments and filed an emergency bankruptcy petition to stay foreclosure. Wells Fargo moved for relief from the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court inspected the note and allonges; found a valid "chain of control and title of the note,” rejecting a claim that the assignment was invalid; and granted relief from the stay. The district court affirmed. Wells Fargo purchased the property at the trustee's sale and filed suit to evict the Boyces. The court rejected claims that the mortgage was invalid and that Wells Fargo did not perfect title and granted summary judgment for Wells Fargo, which sold the property. The Boyces filed claims for wrongful foreclosure, violation of the Unfair Practices Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, 17200), and quiet title. The court of appeal affirmed dismissal, citing res judicata and collateral estoppel. View "Boyce v. T.D. Serv. Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant National Credit Union Administration Board ("NCUA") appealed the district court's order dismissing as untimely its complaint against defendants-appellees Barclays Capital Inc., BCAP LLC, and Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC. This case arose from the failure of two of the nation's largest federally insured credit unions: U.S. Central Federal Credit Union and Western Corporate Federal Credit Union. The NCUA was appointed conservator and later as their liquidating agent. The NCUA determined that the Credit Unions had failed because they had invested in residential mortgage-backed securities ("RMBS") sold with offering documents that misrepresented the quality of their underlying mortgage loans. The NCUA set out to pursue recoveries on behalf of the Credit Unions from the issuers and underwriters of the suspect RMBS, including Barclays, and began settlement negotiations with Barclays and other potential defendants. As these negotiations dragged on through 2011 and 2012, the NCUA and Barclays entered into a series of tolling agreements that purported to exclude all time that passed during the settlement negotiations when "calculating any statute of limitations, period of repose or any defense related to those periods or dates that might be applicable to any Potential Claim that the NCUA may have against Barclays." Significantly, Barclays also expressly made a separate promise in the tolling agreements that it would not "argue or assert" in any future litigation a statute of limitations defense that included the time passed in the settlement negotiations. After negotiations with Barclays broke down, the NCUA filed suit, more than five years after the RMBS were sold, and more than three years after the NCUA was appointed conservator of the Credit Unions. Barclays moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on several grounds, including untimeliness. Barclays initially honored the tolling agreements but argued that the NCUA's federal claims were nevertheless untimely under the Securities Act's three-year statute of repose, which was not waivable. While Barclays's motion to dismiss was pending, the district court in a separate case involving different defendant Credit Suisse, granted Credit Suisse's motion to dismiss a similar NCUA complaint on the grounds that contractual tolling was not authorized under the Extender Statute. Barclays amended its motion to dismiss asserting a similar Extender Statute argument. The district court dismissed the NCUA's complaint, incorporating by reference its opinion in Credit Suisse. The NCUA appealed, arguing that its suit was timely under the Extender Statute. The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded: "while it is true that the NCUA's claims are outside the statutory period and therefore untimely, that argument is unavailable to Barclays because the NCUA reasonably relied on Barclays's express promise not to assert that defense." View "National Credit Union v. Barclays Capital" on Justia Law

Defendants Barrett and Linda Gregoire, sought to amend or set aside judgments of foreclosure in favor of plaintiff bank based on claims of fraud and misrepresentation. The dispute underlying this case concerned four multi-family rental properties: three in Washington County and one in Caledonia County that were part of defendants' rental-property business. The bank's loans to defendants were secured by the properties and were cross-collateralized with each other. In March and April 2010, the bank filed foreclosure complaints with respect to the properties. The parties executed a forbearance agreement under which defendants retained control of the properties as landlords, but the tenants were to pay rent directly to the bank. The parties stipulated to the appointment of a receiver to collect rent for the bank. The receiver filed a report with the court stating that defendant Barrett Gregoire was renting to new tenants and collecting rents and security deposits without turning over the funds to the receiver. Shortly thereafter, the bank filed an emergency motion to enforce the receivership order based on allegations that defendant Barrett Gregoire was substantially interfering with the receivership. The court issued a supplemental order, expanding the receiver's authority and placing the receiver in full control of the properties. The bank notified the court that the forbearance was no longer in place, and that it would proceed with foreclosure. The trial court denied the Gregoires' motions to set aside the trial court's grant of the bank's motions. On appeal, defendants argued that there was no final judgment so the order could have been amended without resort to post-judgment proceedings, and even if it was a final order, the court erred in denying their request for relief and in entering judgment of default. Finding no reversible error in the trial court's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "TBF Financial, LLC v. Gregoire" on Justia Law

Cottage Capital, LLC brought this action to enforce a guaranty agreement against Red Ledges Land Development. The district court dismissed the enforcement action with prejudice, concluding that the enforcement action was precluded as a compulsory counterclaim because it arose out of the same transaction or occurrence as a previously filed declaratory judgment action between the parties, and there could be no waiver of the preclusive effect of Utah R. Civ. P. 13(a). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Rule 13(a) was not implicated in this case because (1) Rule 13(a) does not extend to a counterclaim that has not yet matured at the time of a civil proceeding; and (2) Cottage Capital’s enforcement claim had not matured at the time of the earlier proceedings between the parties, and therefore, this claim was not precluded. Remanded. View "Cottage Capital, LLC v. Red Ledges Land Dev." on Justia Law

BADD, L.L.C. purchased three warehouse units in Myrtle Beach. To finance the transaction, BADD executed two promissory notes. A personal guaranty was also executed by William McKown, who was a member of BADD. After BADD defaulted, the Bank brought this foreclosure action and included McKown as a party based on his status as a guarantor. In McKown's amended answer and counterclaim, he demanded a jury trial because the Bank sought a money judgment for the breach of a guaranty arrangement. McKown further sought an accounting and a determination that the guaranty agreement was unconscionable. McKown then asserted two counterclaims: (1) civil conspiracy and (2) breach of contract, both based on an alleged conspiracy between the Bank and William Rempher. Finally, McKown asserted third-party claims against Rempher. The Bank moved for an order of reference. The circuit granted the motion, referring the matter in its entirety to the master-in-equity. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding McKown was entitled to a jury trial because the Bank's claim on the guaranty agreement was a separate and distinct legal claim. The Bank appealed, challenging the Court of Appeals' finding that McKown was entitled to a jury trial. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that McKown was not entitled to a jury trial solely because the Bank exercised its statutory right to join him as a party in the event of a deficiency judgment. Furthermore, the Court held McKown was not entitled to a jury trial based on his counterclaims, which, while legal, were permissive. McKown waived his right to a jury trial by asserting permissive counterclaims in an equitable action. View "Carolina First Bank v. BADD, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Hana Financial and Hana Bank both provide financial services to individuals in the U.S. When Hana Financial sued Hana Bank for trademark infringement, Hana Bank invoked the tacking doctrine, under which lower courts have provided that a trademark user may make certain modifications to its mark over time while, in limited circumstances, retaining its priority position. The district court adopted in substantial part the jury instruction on tacking proposed by Hana Bank. The jury returned a verdict in Hana Bank’s favor. Affirming, the Ninth Circuit explained that the tacking inquiry was an exceptionally limited and highly fact-sensitive matter reserved for juries, not judges. A unanimous Supreme Court affirmed. Whether two trademarks may be tacked for purposes of determining priority is a jury question. Lower courts have held that two marks may be tacked when they are considered to be “legal equivalents,” i.e., they “create the same, continuing commercial impression,” which “must be viewed through the eyes of a consumer.” When the relevant question is how an ordinary person or community would make an assessment, the jury is generally the decision-maker that ought to provide the fact-intensive answer. The “legal equivalents” test may involve a legal standard, but such mixed questions of law and fact have typically been resolved by juries. Any concern that a jury may improperly apply the relevant legal standard can be remedied by crafting careful jury instructions. View "Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank" on Justia Law