Justia U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

This dispute arose out of a complicated bankruptcy proceeding. On appeal, Lender challenged the district court's judgment which, in relevant part, disallowed Lender's claim for a contractual prepayment consideration. Applying Colorado law, a lender was not entitled to a prepayment penalty when the lender chooses to accelerate the note. Absent a clear contractual provision to the contrary or evidence of the borrower's bad faith in defaulting to avoid a penalty, a lender's decision to accelerate acts as a waiver of a prepayment penalty. In this instance, the plain language of the contract plainly provided that no Prepayment Consideration was owed unless there was an actual prepayment, whether voluntary or involuntary. Accordingly, the acceleration of the Note due to GCMM's default by nonpayment under Article 4 did not trigger the obligation to pay the Prepayment Consideration under Article 6. View "Bank of New York Mellon v. GC Merchandise Mart, L.L.C., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Wells Fargo in state court, raising claims related to Wells Fargo's foreclosure and Freddie Mac's attempts to evict plaintiff. Wells Fargo then removed the case to federal court where the district court dismissed all of plaintiff's claims. At issue on appeal was whether Wells Fargo could move for attorney's fees pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2). Here, the deed of trust at issue provided for attorney's fees to compensate Wells Fargo, inter alia, for the prosecution or defense of a claim. The language of the contract and the nature of the claim were the dispositive factors concerning whether the fees were an element of damages or collateral litigation costs. In this instance the court concluded that the motions for attorney's fees provided by contract were permissible under Rule 54(d)(2). Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Richardson v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al." on Justia Law

Acting as receiver, the FDIC conveyed substantially all of WaMU's assets and liabilities to JPMorgan Chase, including certain long-term real-estate leases. At issue was whether the owners of the leased tracts could enforce the leases against Chase by virtue of the FDIC's conveyance. The court held that, in the interest of maintaining uniformity in the construction and enforcement of federal contracts, the landlords did not qualify as third-party beneficiaries. The court concluded, however, that the landlords have "standing" to prove the content of the Agreement and that the Agreement, properly construed, was a complete "assignment" sufficient to create privity of estate under Texas law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Excel Willowbrook, L.L.C., et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff's claims arising out of the threatened foreclosure on two residential investment properties he owned. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that Deutsche Bank was a mortgagee and could proceed with the foreclosure action; as a non-party mortgagor, and without any evidence showing plaintiff to be an intended third-party beneficiary, the court concluded that plaintiff lacked the requisite standing to bring suit to enforce the terms of the Pooling & Services Agreement that governed the assignment of the mortgagor's notes; and the requirement in Tex. Prop. Code 51.0001(3) that the current mortgagee provide the notice required the court also to consider defendants' argument that quasi-estoppel under Texas law precluded plaintiff from challenging GMAC's status as mortgage servicer. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Farkas v. GMAC Mortgage, L.L.C., et al." on Justia Law

Serna defaulted on a loan he obtained through the Internet that was subsequently purchased by Samara. Attorney Onwuteaka, who owns Samara, obtained a default judgment and attempted to collect. Serna then filed suit in federal court, alleging that because he neither resided nor entered the loan agreement in Harris County where the judgment entered, the suit violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692, venue requirement. A magistrate found Serna’s suit was untimely under the FDCPA’s one-year limitations period because he filed his complaint more than one year after Onwuteaka filed his petition in the underlying debt-collection action. The Fifth Circuit reversed, that the alleged FDCPA violation arose only after Serna received notice of the underlying debt collection action. The FDCPA provides that a debtor may bring an action “within one year from the date on which the violation occurs.” A violation of does not occur until the debt-collection suit is filed and the alleged debtor is notified of the suit.View "Serna v. Law Office of Joseph Onwuteaka" on Justia Law

Spring Street, seeking to recover against Bayou and its owner Douglas Lam on defaulted promissory notes, claimed that certain transfers that defendants made were fraudulent: (1) Bayou's transfer of "hard assets" to LT Seafood when LT Seafood took over Bayou's retail operations at the 415 East Hamilton location; (2) Douglas Lam's transfer of his 49% interest in LT Seafood to DKL & DTL; and (3) DKL & DTL's subsequent transfer of this 49% interest to Vinh Ngo. The court concluded that Spring Street could pierce DKL & DTL's corporate veil on the basis of fraud and impose individual liability on the LLC members. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Spring Street with regard to these claims. However, the court concluded that Ten Lam and Ngo have raised a genuine dispute of fact as to both which "hard assets" Bayou transferred to LT Seafood and the value of those assets on the date of the transfer. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment in regards to Spring Street's fraudulent transfer claim against Lam and Ngo for the amount of $150,000 and remanded for further proceedings. View "Spring Street Partners v. Lam, et al." on Justia Law

Issuer Banks appealed the district court's dismissal of their negligence claim as third party beneficiaries of Heartland's contracts with other entities. This case arose out of a group of hackers' breach of Heartland's data systems, compromising confidential information belonging to customers of Issuer Banks. Mindful that the New Jersey Supreme Court has long been a leader in expanding tort liability, and in light of the lack of a developed record illuminating any contractual remedies available to Issuer Banks, the court held that, in this instance, the economic loss doctrine did not bar Issuer Banks' negligence claim at this stage of the litigation. The court declined to decide on the remaining complex issues that Heartland raised. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "In Re: Heartland Payment Sys., et al." on Justia Law

This case involved the foreclosure sale of certain property owned by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal with prejudice of their claims against BAC and NDE under the Texas Debt Collection Act (TDCA), Tex. Fin. Code 392.304(a), the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 17.41 et seq., and Texas common law. The court concluded that plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to state a claim against BAC for misrepresenting the status or nature of the services that it rendered. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's dismissal of the TDCA claims under section 392.304(a)(14) as to that basis, remanding for further proceedings. Consequently, the court also reversed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' request for an accounting from NDE. The court affirmed in all other respects. View "Miller, et al. v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., et al." on Justia Law

Lamesa filed suit against Liberty Mutual alleging that Liberty Mutual was liable under a federally-required surety bond for the alleged misconduct of its principal, a trustee in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. On appeal, Liberty Mutual appealed the district court's decision to affirm the bankruptcy court's judgment that the trustee had committed gross negligence and Liberty Mutual, as the trustee's surety, was liable for damages under the terms of the bond. The court held that the controlling limitations period in this case was provided by 11 U.S.C. 322(d). Because Liberty Mutual did not contest that Lamesa's claim was timely under that provision, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's conclusion that Lamesa's suit was not time-barred. On the merits, the court concluded that the bankruptcy court's finding that the trustee was grossly negligent in performing her duties was not clearly erroneous; expert testimony was not necessary to establish that the trustee failed to meet her standard of care; and Liberty Mutual failed to demonstrate that the district court's damage award was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. USA by Lamesa National Bank" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, mortgagors who defaulted on their note, appealed the district court's motion to dismiss their suit seeking to enjoin a bank from foreclosing. Plaintiffs argued that the assignments by which the bank obtained the note and corresponding deed of trust were "robo-signed" and therefore invalid. Concluding that plaintiffs had standing, the court reaffirmed that, under Texas law, facially valid assignments could not be challenged for want of authority except by the defrauded assignor. View "Reinagel, Jr., et al. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co." on Justia Law