Federal National Mortgage Association v. Deschaine

Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court

Citation: 2017 ME 190

Opinion Date: September 7, 2017

Judge: Hjelm

Areas of Law: Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court concluding that the second foreclosure action filed by the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) against Patricia and Paul Deschaine was barred as a matter of law by the judgment dismissing with prejudice Fannie Mae’s earlier foreclosure action against the Deschaines. The first foreclosure action was dismissed with prejudice because the parties failed to comply with the court’s pretrial order. The judgment later became final. The next year, Fannie Mae filed its second complaint for foreclosure involving the same property and based on the same note and mortgage. The superior court granted the Deschaines’ motion for summary judgment on the complaint. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that this second foreclosure claim was precluded by principles of res judicata.

GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. TamiLynn Willoughby

Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey

Docket: a-97-15

Opinion Date: July 31, 2017

Judge: Barry T. Albin

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Real Estate & Property Law

In November 2008, following the collapse of the housing market, the New Jersey Supreme Court implemented a statewide Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Mediation Program to address the economic crisis that left many facing the loss of their homes. After defaulting on her home loan with plaintiff GMAC Mortgage, LLC, defendant TamiLynn Willoughby entered into the Foreclosure Mediation Program. The mediation process led to an agreement between GMAC and Willoughby that gave Willoughby a path to save her home through a permanent modification of the loan. The agreement, executed in 2010, set forth the required down payment and monthly payments, the unpaid principal balance, the amount in arrears, and the length and interest rate of the loan. Willoughby complied with that agreement, paying the down payment and each monthly installment for one year. Then, GMAC began sending Willoughby proposals differing from the 2010 agreement, which GMAC claimed was provisional. Willoughby moved to enforce the 2010 settlement agreement, but instead the chancery court ordered additional mediation sessions. Willoughby never accepted in writing any of GMAC s proposals to modify the original agreement. Protracted litigation ensued. Willoughby’s efforts to enforce the 2010 settlement agreement proved fruitless, and GMAC s foreclosure action ended with a Sheriff’s sale of Willoughby’s home. Willoughby was denied relief by the chancery court, which held that the 2010 mediation agreement was provisional and not enforceable as a final settlement agreement. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, concluding Willoughby and GMAC entered into an enforceable settlement agreement through the Foreclosure Mediation Program. The case was remanded to the chancery court to consider an appropriate remedy.

EVERY SUNDAY
3:00 PM HAWAII
6:00 PM PACIFIC
9:00 PM EASTERN
ON KHVH-AM
(830 ON THE DIAL)
AND ON
iHEART RADIO

Four years ago, JPMorgan Chase reached a then-record settlement with the Department of Justice after, among other things, the bank received a copy of a U.S. attorney’s draft complaint documenting its alleged role in underwriting fraudulent securities in the years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. Following the bank’s $13 billion financial agreement, the draft complaint was never filed. Then the bank paid another settlement to prevent a separate legal case from potentially unearthing it. The contents of the draft complaint have long been a financial-crisis mystery, a Great White Whale of a document. At least until now.

Vanity Fair-

In November 2013, JPMorgan Chase, the nation’s largest bank, agreed to pay a then-record $13 billion fine to federal and state authorities in order to settle claims that it had misled investors in the years leading up to the financial crisis. JPMorgan Chase’s settlement raised many eyebrows on Wall Street. The huge settlement appeared inconsistent with the oft-repeated narrative of the bank’s heroism during the crisis. JPMorgan Chase and its C.E.O., Jamie Dimon, after all, were appropriately lauded for swooping in to save both Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, acts of financial patriotism that certainly helped prevent the U.S. economy from further doubling over upon itself.

But people wondered why one of Wall Street’s ostensible white knights would pay $13 billion—$9 billion of its shareholders’ cash, plus another $4 billion in mortgage relief—in a government case. During a conference call on the morning that the settlement was announced, Mike Mayo, a veteran Wall Street analyst, asked Dimon and bank C.F.O. Marianne Lake the question that appeared to be on the minds of everyone in the financial-services industry: “How is it that JPMorgan got front and center with this issue? That it’s the Department of Justice working out an agreement with JPMorgan when JPMorgan performed so well during the crisis, yet here’s the one bank that’s paying a $13 billion fine?” Without missing a beat, Dimon retorted, “Mike, you’ve got to ask them, O.K.?” In other words, Dimon seemed to be saying to Mayo, as he later put it in Davos, that the whole thing was “unfair.”

[VANITY FAIR]

LA TIMES-

Far be it from me to see metaphors where none exist, but Wells Fargo’s good name was literally blown away when Hurricane Harvey roared into the Texas city of Corpus Christi last week.

As the local paper reported: “An ‘O’ came to rest near a fountain on the corner of Lower Broadway and Peoples streets. Near there an ‘F’ sat, positioned by the downtown murals of children swimming underwater. An ‘L’ was propped against a blue dumpster.”

The big yellow letters blew off the top of the bank’s downtown building. They were subsequently retrieved and left in a heap near the front door.

That’s the image in my head as Congress returns to work Tuesday after its August recess (the Senate took three weeks off; the House took five). On the to-do list is Republicans’ ill-conceived Financial Choice Act, which the House passed in June and the Senate Banking Committee will take up in coming weeks.

[LA TIMES]

Palm Beach Post-

Morning Star-

Two former managers have sued Wells Fargo & Co., claiming they were unfairly fired over the bank’s sales-practices issues.

Reza Razzaghipour and Marla Razzaghipour claimed their dismissals were retaliation for them raising issues with senior managers about the questionable sales practices, such as falsification of bank records, according to a lawsuit filed Aug. 31 in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The former managers, who are husband and wife, were fired in March 2017 from positions overseeing regions in Southern California. Combined, the two managed about 3,500 staff, The Wall Street Journal previously reported.

[MORNING STAR]

EVERY SUNDAY
3:00 PM HAWAII
6:00 PM PACIFIC
9:00 PM EASTERN
ON KHVH-AM
(830 ON THE DIAL)
AND ON
iHEART RADIO