Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

In 2007, Appellants David and Mary Eldridge executed a promissory note and mortgage in favor of Plaintiff-Appellee J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. In both the Note and the Mortgage, "JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A." was explicitly designated as the lender and payee, or entity to whom payment under the Note and Mortgage was due. Appellants voluntarily filed bankruptcy in 2009. In their amended statement of intentions, Appellants agreed to reaffirm the outstanding balance on the Note. Shortly thereafter, the Note went into default. Appellee Chase Home Finance Milwaukee initiated foreclosure proceedings in 2010, claiming to be the present holder of the Note and Mortgage. Chase Home Finance Milwaukee claimed to have acquired the Note and Mortgage by assignment from J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. in their motion for summary judgment filed several months later. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Bank, finding the Bank was the undisputed owner and holder of the Note and Mortgage. Accordingly, judgment was entered in favor of the Bank and Appellants' counterclaims were dismissed. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Appellants argued the trial court erred ruling in favor of the Bank. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no evidence in the record to support the Bank's contention that it was the holder of the Note. Therefore, the Court reversed the granting of summary judgment by the trial court and remanded the case back for further proceedings.

The State of Nevada filed a parens patriae lawsuit against Bank of America in Clark County District Court, alleging that the Bank misled Nevada consumers about the terms and operation of its home mortgage modification and foreclosure processes, in violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Nev. Rev. Stat. 598.0903-.0999. Nevada also alleged that the Bank violated an existing consent judgment in a prior case between Nevada and several of the Bank's subsidiaries, entered in Clark County District Court. The Bank removed the action to federal district court, asserting federal subject matter jurisdiction as either a "class action" or "mass action" under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), and as arising under federal law, 28 U.S.C. 1331. Denying Nevada's motion to remand, the federal district court concluded that it had jurisdiction over the action as a CAFA "class action," but not as a "mass action," and that it also had federal question jurisdiction because resolving the state claims would require an interpretation of federal law. The court concluded that because parens patriae actions were not removable under CAFA, and the action did not otherwise satisfy CAFA's "mass action" requirements, the district court lacked jurisdiction under CAFA. The court also exercised its interlocutory appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1453(c) to review the district court's determination that it had federal question jurisdiction because the complaint referenced the federal Home Affordable Mortgage Program and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCP), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. The court concluded that the district court lacked federal question jurisdiction. Because there was no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, the case was remanded to Nevada state court.

First American Title Insurance Company (FATIC) provided title insurance for a mortgage refinancing to SunTrust Mortgage through FATIC's title agent, First Alliance. First Alliance subsequently obtained a $100,000 surety bond pursuant to the Virginia Consumer Real Estate Settlement Protection Act (CRESPA) from Western Surety (Western). After the property owner defaulted under the original mortgages, SunTrust lost $734,296. FATIC paid the full amount of this loss then made a formal demand upon Western for $100,000. Western refused to pay FATIC the amount of the surety bond. FATIC sued Western and First Alliance for breach of contract. The district court entered judgment in FATIC's favor for $100,000. The Supreme Court held (1) CRESPA does not recognize a private cause of action that may be asserted against a surety and the surety bond issued pursuant to former Va. Code Ann. 6.1-2.21(D)(3); (2) Virginia law nonetheless permits a cause of action against a surety and the surety bond executed pursuant to CRESPA by the assertion of a common law claim; and (3) a title insurance company may have standing, not in its own right, but as a subrogee of its insured, to maintain a cause of action against a surety and the surety bond.

In a proceeding under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, a question arose concerning the application of the Commonwealth's homestead protection statute, G.L.c. 188, section 1, to a beneficiary of a trust. Finding no controlling precedent in the court's decisions, the Bankruptcy Court judge certified the following question: "May the holder of a beneficial interest in a trust which holds title to real estate and attendant dwelling in which such beneficiary resides acquire an estate of homestead in said land and building under G.L.c. 188, section 1?" The court confined its answer to the 2004 version of the homestead statute and answered the certified question in the negative. The court rejected the debtor's claims and concluded that even though the debtor resided in the Lowell property and used it as her home, as the owner of a fifty percent beneficial interest in the trust that holds to the property but who did not direct or control the trustee, she could not validly claim a homestead exemption for the property under the 2004 act.

In this bankruptcy case, SunTrust filed a proof of claim for repayment of a loan that it claimed was secured by a deed of trust on two contiguous parcels of debtor's real property in Orange County, North Carolina (Tract I and Tract II). The Trustee commenced this action under 11 U.S.C. 544(a)(3) to avoid the lien on Tract I because the deed of trust, while recorded on the official recordation index of Orange County as to Tract II, was not so recorded as to Tract I. SunTrust contended that even though the recordation was deficient, the Trustee was imputed with constructive knowledge of the lien on Tract I. The bankruptcy court rejected SunTrust's arguments and ordered its lien on Tract I avoided under section 544(a)(3), and the district court affirmed. Because the Trustee's status vis-a-vis the title of Tract I was, under section 544(a)(3), that of a bona fide purchaser under North Carolina law, the Trustee was only imputed with the notice that would be imputed to a bona fide purchaser of Tract I under North Carolina law. And North Carolina law allowed a purchaser to rely exclusively on the official recordation index of the county to discover liens, regardless of what other independent knowledge that purchaser might have. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment.

Chapter 11 debtor, one of more than 50 subsidiaries of MMPI, filed a motion seeking a determination that it and other subsidiaries were not subject to the single asset real estate provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 101(51B) and 362(d)(3). Creditor filed a cross motion seeking to apply the single asset real estate provisions to debtor. The district court held that debtor should be treated as a single asset real estate debtor because there was no "whole enterprise exception" to the single asset real estate provisions in the plain language of the statute. The court held that there was no error in the district court's approach and no error in the district court's application of section 101(51B). Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

The debtor's single asset is a commercial building. The lender promptly started foreclosure proceedings in state court, prevailed, and a foreclosure sale of the property was scheduled, but was stayed when the debtor filed for bankruptcy, 11 U.S.C. 362(a)(4). The lender became a participant in the bankruptcy The bankruptcy court rejected the debtor's plan to exchange the mortgage for an "indubitable equivalent," lifted the stay, and dismissed the bankruptcy. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the lender has waited years to enforce its lien and that the court was not required to further stretch the wait. The lien on Treasury bonds proposed by the debtor would not be equivalent to the lender retaining its lien on the building.

Vegas Diamond and Johnson Investments appealed from the district court's order granting the Ex Parte Motion to Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order filed by the FDIC as receiver for La Jolla Bank. The district court determined that 12 U.S.C. 1821(j), the anti-injunction provision of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 precluded a court from enjoining the FDIC from conducting a trustee's sale of the real properties. The court held that the appeal was moot because the real properties were sold during the pendency of the appeal.

The debtors bought their house in 1994 and, after a Chapter 7 discharge in 2004, refinanced. The loan closed in California, although the house was in Michigan, and the debtors signed a note, but did not sign a mortgage. The loan was funded and assigned to appellant. A few months later, they filed a Chapter 13 petition and the lender produced a recorded mortgage, ostensibly signed by the debtors in Michigan. The Bankruptcy Court found that the signatures were forged. On remand from the district court, it imposed an equitable mortgage on the house. The district court reversed, finding the mortgage void ab initio. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The district court properly considered the issue, held that the mortgage was void, and declined to impose an equitable mortgage because the assignee is subject to the defense of unclean hands, as was the original lender.

Debtors borrowed $157,291.77, secured by their home and took a second loan for $15,870, using their truck as security. They filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and signed a reaffirmation agreement committing to pay those two debts. They stopped making payments; the truck had been stolen. The bank filed an unsecured claim. The trustee sought to avoid the mortgage as not properly perfected; the matter was resolved by agreement. The bank bought the property at auction, re-sold it at a profit of $33,400 and filed an unsecured claim for the full balance of the mortgage. The bankruptcy court allowed the claim; the bank received a total of about $37,000 in payments as an unsecured creditor on the two loans. The bank then sued the debtors in Kentucky state court, seeking about $89,000 on the real property loan and about $11,500 on the truck loan. The bankruptcy court reopened the case and voided the reaffirmation agreement on the ground of mutual mistake because the parties signed the agreement based on the false assumption that the bank held secured interests in the real property and the truck, which would have allowed debtors (rather than the bankruptcy estate) to retain ownership. The district court and Sixth Circuit affirmed.