Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Appellants Heang Ouch and Morcos Hanna sought to represent a putative class of borrowers who had not kept up with their mortgage loan payments. The borrowers’ loan servicers made a number of contractually-mandated advances (dubbed “delinquency advances”) of funds to the holders of the notes. The loan servicers also, as agents of the holders of the notes, initiated foreclosure proceedings against the borrowers. The borrowers filed separate suits arguing that, despite their non-payment, the servicers’ delinquency advances constituted payments on the borrowers’ debts, that their mortgages were not in default and, accordingly, that the mortgage-holders lacked the power to foreclose. The district court concluded that the services’ payments were not made “on behalf of” the borrowers. The First Circuit consolidated Ouch’s and Hanna’s appeals and affirmed the district court’s rulings denying an amendment to Ouch’s complaint and dismissing Hanna’s complaint with prejudice, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that the payments were not made “on behalf of” the borrowers. View "Ouch v. Fed. Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n" on Justia Law

In the underlying putative class action, counsel for the named plaintiffs obtained a collection of records owned by JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase). Plaintiffs sought to rely on the documents to pursue claims sounding in fraud, deceit, and conversion against Chase. A dispute arose as to whether portions of the Chase records were shielded from discovery and litigation under a provision of Bank Secrecy Act and related regulations. A magistrate judge reviewed all of the disputed documents in camera and concluded that the majority of the documents were not shielded by statute or regulation. Chase then initiated this mandamus proceeding, asking the First Circuit to intervene by declaring that the Act and related regulations shielded an additional fifty-five pages of Chase records from production or use in the putative class action. The First Circuit denied the petition for writ of mandamus, holding that, even assuming that the Act and regulations apply, the documents at dispute would not be shielded from discovery or use in litigation. View "In re JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was the correct interpretation of two different state statutes concerning defects in real estate titles. A Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee filed this action to avoid a mortgage held by a bank that contained a material defect: the certificate of acknowledgement did not include the names of the mortgagors. After the mortgage was recorded, the notary on the mortgage executed an affidavit, later recorded, attesting that the debtors had personally and voluntarily signed the mortgage. The debtors later went into bankruptcy. At issue in this case was whether, under Massachusetts law, the affidavit could cure the defective acknowledgement or otherwise provide constructive notice to a bona fide purchaser. If not, the bankruptcy trustee could avoid the mortgage. Because the state law questions were dispositive and unresolved by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), the First Circuit certified the questions for resolution by the Massachusetts SJC. View "Bank of America, N.A. v. Casey" on Justia Law

Claiming that they were uncertain as to which entity held an enforceable mortgage on their home, Plaintiffs brought actions against numerous potential mortgagees, seeking “interim relief,” “quieting of title,” and “credit reporting.” The district court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The First Circuit affirmed but for different reasons than those stated by the district court, holding that because Plaintiff relinquished legal title to the property and because Plaintiff’s assertions respecting uncertainty over the mortgage speak solely to the legal title and not to her equitable interest in the property, there was not the requisite adversity to cloud her claim of equitable title as required by the quiet title statute. View "Lister v. Bank of America, N.A." on Justia Law

After Plaintiff defaulted on a mortgage loan secured by her property, a complaint was filed in the Massachusetts land court as a preliminary step to foreclose on Plaintiff’s house. Plaintiff subsequently filed this case in federal district court against Defendants, asserting multiple claims arising from the purportedly invalid transfer and assignment of the mortgage on her home. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants. While this appeal was pending, the parties reached an agreement, which resulted in the mortgage loan becoming current and Plaintiff no longer being subject to any actual or threatened foreclosure proceedings. The First Circuit dismissed this appeal as moot, holding that the circumstances evolved in such a way that there was no longer a live case or controversy. View "Matt v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A." on Justia Law

Plaintiff and his wife purchased a home in Massachusetts that was encumbered by a mortgage. The mortgage was eventually assigned to Defendant CitiMortgage, Inc. Defendant ultimately invoked its statutory power of sale and sent a notice of foreclosure sale to Plaintiff’s home address. Plaintiff sued, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. A federal district court granted summary judgment for Defendant on all counts and denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, holding that none of the grounds advanced by Plaintiff for reversal of the district court’s denial of reconsideration warranted relief. View "Biltcliffe v. CitiMortgage, Inc." on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether New Hampshire law requires a foreclosing entity to hold both mortgage and note before it can exercise a power of sale under N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 479:25, which authorizes a mortgagee to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure where, as in this case, the mortgage document contains a clause allowing them. Plaintiff executed a promissory note and a mortgage. The note and mortgage document and the note were subsequently assigned to different entities. After Plaintiff failed to make mortgage payments, Defendant, the mortgagee, moved to foreclose. Defendant removed the case from New Hampshire state court to federal court. The district court allowed Defendant’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the parties’ intent to separate the mortgage and note at the beginning of the transaction trumped any common law rule requiring unity, and thus, Defendant could proceed with the foreclosure under section 479:25. Plaintiff appealed. Because controlling state precedent did not provide definitive guidance on how to resolve the questions of whether the common law or state statute mandates the unity of a mortgage and note, and if so, whether parties can override that rule by agreement, the First Circuit certified the questions to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. View "Castagnaro v. Bank of New York Mellon" on Justia Law

With the threat of foreclosure looming on his home, Plaintiff sued Bank for failing to consider him for a mortgage loan modification, which a California class action settlement agreement required Bank to do before attempting to foreclose on Plaintiff’s home. The complaint alleged breach of contract, violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, 35A and 35B, violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The district court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. The First Circuit vacated in part and remanded Plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, holding (1) Plaintiff’s statutory causes of action fell short of stating a cognizable claim; but (2) the district court improperly converted Bank’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s contract-based claims into a motion for summary judgment, warranting a remand of those claims. View "Foley v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Dragon Systems, Inc. (Dragon), a voice recognition software company that faced a deteriorating financial situation, hired Goldman Sachs (Goldman) to provide financial advice and assistance in connection with a possible merger. In 2000, Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. (Lernout & Hauspie) acquired Dragon. When it was discovered that Lernout & Hauspie had fraudulently overstated its earnings, the merged company filed for bankruptcy, and the Dragon name and technology were sold from the estate. Plaintiffs, two groups of Dragon shareholders, filed suit against Goldman, alleging negligent and intentional misrepresentation, negligence, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A. A jury found in favor of Goldman on Plaintiffs’ common law claims, and district court found that Goldman had not violated chapter 93A. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly articulated the legal standard applicable to Plaintiffs’ chapter 93A claims and correctly applied that standard to its factual findings; and (2) Plaintiffs’ arguments that they were entitled to a new trial on their common law claims because of evidentiary errors and erroneous jury instructions were without merit. View "Baker v. Goldman, Sachs & Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s property was subject to a mortgage. Plaintiff discussed refinancing with a predecessor in interest to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as a mortgage broker and his firm, whom Plaintiff referred to as “agents” of Wells Fargo. Based on these discussions, Plaintiff began making improvements to increase the property’s appraised value. Ultimately, Plaintiff was unable to refinance her mortgage. Plaintiff brought suit against Wells Fargo, alleging, among other claims, a violation of N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 397-A:2(VI) (count one) and promissory estoppel (count five). The district court dismissed counts one and five of Plaintiff’s complaint, concluding both claims were inadequately pleaded. Plaintiff appealed, arguing, among other things, that although she could not claim a private right of action under section 397-A:2(VI), she did state a claim for common law fraud. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court properly dismissed any state law fraud claim that Plaintiff belatedly attempted to advance and correctly dismissed Plaintiff’s promissory estoppel claim.View "Ruivo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law