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

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

Attorney Valeriano Diviacchi represented Camilla Warrender in an action brought against Warrender by her mortgagee, Sovereign Bank, which sought to collect on a loan secured by certain real property. Shortly after Diviacchi entered his appearance, Warrender, without Diviacchi’s assistance, agreed to a settlement pursuant to a stipulation that Warrender’s property be sold to a third party. Diviacchi filed a notice of attorney’s lien pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 221, 50 (section 50). The property was subsequently sold to a third-party, and Sovereign Bank dismissed its claims against Warrender. The district court denied the motion to enforce the attorney’s lien, concluding that the lien was not enforceable under section 50 because Diviacchi “failed to make a showing that he incurred reasonable fees and expenses….” The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Diviacchi’s lien was not legally enforceable against the sale proceeds.View "Sovereign Bank v. Diviacchi" on Justia Law

Plaintiff alleged that he was the victim of a fraudulent scheme in which he allowed an attorney to take title to his home and strip it of its equity by granting a new mortgage. Plaintiff filed suit against the mortgagee in an effort to avoid foreclosure. A federal district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim that the mortgage was void. The district court denied Plaintiff’s subsequent motion to amend his complaint. The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint and the denial of his motion for leave to amend, holding (1) Plaintiff’s complaint provided no legal basis for making the bank liable for the attorney’s wrongdoing; and (2) Plaintiff failed adequately to plead facts supporting his proposed amendments to his complaint, and therefore, his new claims were also futile.View "Giuffre v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co." on Justia Law

Appellant entered into a mortgage contract with Pawtucket Credit Union (PCU) for the purchase of real property in Rhode Island. The mortgage agreement included a private contractual remedy, authorized by R. I. Gen. Laws 34-11-22, that allowed PCU, in the event Appellant defaulted on her loan payments, to accelerate its loan and invoke its statutory power of sale. PCU later declared Appellant in default, invoked its statutory power of sale, and began the foreclosure process. Appellant filed suit against PCU in federal district court, alleging that foreclosure pursuant to section 34-11-22 violated her federal and state due process rights. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that none of the statutory bases cited in Appellant’s complaint conferred federal jurisdiction. View "Grapentine v. Pawtucket Credit Union" on Justia Law