Justia Commercial Law Opinion Summaries

In 2007, Debtor purchased a manufactured home, borrowing the funds from Creditor and granting a security interest. Creditor filed an application for first title and a title lien statement in Whitley County, Kentucky. The seller of the manufactured home is located in Whitley County. Debtor resided at the time in Laurel County, Kentucky. Later, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet issued a Certificate of Title for the Manufactured Home showing the lien as being filed in Whitley County. In 2010, Debtor filed his voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. The Chapter 7 Trustee initiated an adversary proceeding. The Bankruptcy Court avoided the lien, 11 U.S.C. 544. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The statute requires that title lien statements be filed in the county of the debtor’s residence even if the initial application for certificate of title or registration is filed in another county under KRS 186A.120(2)(a). View "In re: Pierce" on Justia Law

A hog producer with outstanding loans to Primebank went deeper into debt by purchasing feed on credit from Oyens Feed & Supply to fatten the hogs to market weight. The hog producer subsequently filed for bankruptcy. Primebank had a perfected security interest in the hogs to secure two promissory notes predating Oyen Feed's perfected agricultural supply dealer lien on the hogs. The hog producer filed an adversary proceeding to determine the priority of the liens. The bankruptcy court granted Primebank partial summary judgment on grounds that Oyens Feed failed to provide Primebank a certified request under Iowa Code 570A.2. Oyens Feed appealed the bankruptcy court's ruling to the U.S. district court, which then certified a question of law to the Supreme Court. The Court answered by holding that Primebank's prior perfected security interest in the hogs is trumped by Oyen Feed's agricultural supply dealer lien under Iowa Code 570A.5(3) to the extent of the enhanced value of the livestock presumptively attributable to the feed, even though the bank received no certified request before the feed was sold on credit. View "Oyens Feed & Supply, Inc. v. Primebank" on Justia Law

A casino-hotel filed for bankruptcy. Appellant, the administrative agent for a syndicate of lenders that loaned money to the casino's developers, and Respondents, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers who asserted statutory liens against the property, entered into a dispute over the priority of their respective liens on the property. The Supreme Court accepted questions certified to it from the bankruptcy court regarding the application of contractual subordination, equitable subordination, and equitable subrogation in the context of a mechanic's lien. Appellant moved to strike Respondents' appendix, contending that the included documents contained information beyond the facts certified to the Court by the bankruptcy court. Respondents opposed the motion, arguing that the additional information was necessary for the Court's understanding of the certified legal questions. The Supreme Court granted the motion to strike after determining that Respondents' appendix was filed solely to contradict the certification order and the complaint, holding that while an appendix may be filed to assist the Court in understanding the matter, it may not be used to controvert the facts as stated in the certification order. View "In re Fontainebleau Las Vegas Holdings" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the order of the bankruptcy court granting a motion for summary judgment filed by the trustee of debtor's bankruptcy estate. The trustee sought, and the bankruptcy court entered, an order determining that defendant did not have a security interest in certain of debtor's personal property. The court held that the record supported the bankruptcy court's determination that Wells Fargo had the authority to terminate defendant's successor in interest's (NSB) financing statements. The court also affirmed on the basis that termination of the financing statements was unnecessary because NSB's security interest in the property was extinguished when Loan No. 7 was paid in full in September 2007. View "Mutual of Omaha Bank v. Lange, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued individual defendants and a bank alleging violations of Wisconsin Statute section 134.01, which prohibits conspiracies to willfully or maliciously injure the reputation, trade, business or profession of another. Defendants had caused appointment of a receiver for plaintiff's business and had sued, claiming that plaintiff "looted" the business. A jury verdict against plaintiff was reversed. The receivership is still on appeal. The district court dismissed plaintiff's subsequent suit for failure to state a claim. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. While plaintiff did plead malice adequately to support a claim, the claim was barred by issue preclusion. Plaintiff was attempting to relitigate whether the imposition and ends of the receivership were proper. View "Virnich v. Vorwald" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued in state court challenging the validity of both the foreclosure of his home by Chase and the redemption of his home by a junior lienholder, National. The district court subsequently granted Chase's and National's respective motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff contended that Minnesota law required Chase to hold both the mortgage and the promissory note at the time of the foreclosure, and genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether Chase held the note. Plaintiff also contended that National's redemption was invalid because the foreclosure itself was invalid. The court held that Chase was the party entitled to commence a foreclosure by advertisement under Minnesota law, even if the promissory note had been transferred to someone else. Assuming arguendo Minnesota law required Chase to possess the note, the district court correctly granted Chase's motion for summary judgment in any event because plaintiff did not raise any genuine issues of material fact showing Chase was not the holder of the note at the time of the foreclosure. The court declined to address plaintiff's argument regarding redemption because plaintiff never challenged it in the district court. View "Stein v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff refinanced her home by executing a promissory note in favor of Saxon Mortgage and a deed of trust (DOT) naming Saxon as beneficiary and a title company as trustee. Saxon assigned the note to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as trustee for Saxon Asset Securities Trust 2005-3 by endorsing the note in blank. The assignment was not recorded. Plaintiff defaulted under the note. Deutsche Bank then executed a substitution of trustee, removing the title company as trustee and appointing Tiffany and Bosco as the substituting trustee. Tiffany and Bosco recorded a notice of trustee's sale, naming "Deutsche Bank/2005-3" as the current beneficiary in care of Saxon Mortgage Services. An agent of Saxon then executed an assignment of the DOT, assigning all its beneficial interest to Deutsche Bank. The Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of questions certified by the United State Bankruptcy Court, answering that the recording of an assignment of deed of trust is not required prior to the filing of a notice of trustee's sale under Ariz. Rev. Stat. 33-808 when the assignee holds a promissory note payable to bearer. View "Vasquez v. Saxon Mortgage, Inc." on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the mortgage plaintiff carried on her New York house. In 2001, WaMu acquired the note and mortgage and then assigned it to Fannie Mae. Thereafter, plaintiff's home went into foreclosure, WaMu failed, and the FDIC became its receiver. In 2009, plaintiff brought this action against the FDIC, alleging that WaMu "owned and/or serviced the mortgage," and that it engaged in wrongful conduct in the foreclosure's aftermath. The district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) on the ground that plaintiff lacked standing. Plaintiff appealed and the FDIC argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because plaintiff's notice of appeal was untimely. The court held that the district court's order ran afoul of Rule 4(a)(5)(C), which limited any extensions to thirty days, meaning that the last permissible day would have been the day before plaintiff filed her notice. The court agreed with plaintiff that the Rule 4(a)(5)(C) time limit was a claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional bar, and that the FDIC forfeited its timeliness objection. The court reversed the decision of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Youkelsone v. FDIC" on Justia Law

Loan borrowers entered into a residential mortgage loan. After a dispute about whether the borrowers paid the proper amount of property taxes, the mortgage holder filed a foreclosure action, alleging that the borrowers failed to pay monthly mortgage payments and fees. The borrowers asserted numerous legal defenses and claims against the mortgage holder and loan servicer. The borrowers asked for a jury trial on these defenses and claims, but the trial court denied the request, reasoning that foreclosure was an "essentially equitable" cause of action. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the essential features of this case were not equitable. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of the borrowers' request for a jury trial, holding that the borrowers' claims and defenses shall be tried in equity because the core legal questions presented by the borrowers' defenses and claims were significantly intertwined with the subject matter of the foreclosure action.

Debtor, a limited liability company, was formed by five members, who made up a Board of Managers. Forte had a 12% interest. After his requests to inspect of business records were denied, Forte sued Lynch, the member with the highest percentage interest. In the six months before filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the company paid Forte $215,000 as part of the settlement. The bankruptcy court found that Forte qualified as an "insider" (11 U.S.C. 547(b)(4)(B)) and that the trustee could void and recover the transfers. The district court and Seventh Circuit affirmed. Insider status is not just a matter of title; Forte retained voting rights in the company, held a formal position on the Board, and did not resign until after he received the transferred funds.