Justia Consumer Law Opinion Summaries

In 2009 Elisabeth Bachmeier defaulted on a loan secured by a deed of trust against her home, and a nonjudicial foreclosure was initiated. Bachmeier requested a reinstatement quote in order to halt the foreclosure. Alaska Trustee, the trustee under the deed of trust, replied with a quote which included foreclosure costs that were not attorney's fees or court costs, the only items the foreclosure statute expressly mentions as recoverable in a reinstatement amount. Bachmeier brought suit against Alaska Trustee, Routh Crabtree Olsen (the law firm aiding in the foreclosure), and Richard Ullstrom (an attorney employed by Routh Crabtree Olsen), alleging that the inclusion of the disputed foreclosure costs violated the foreclosure statute and was a deceptive practice in violation of the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act (UTPA). Bachmeier also argued that her deed of trust did not provide that all foreclosure costs could be recovered in the reinstatement amount. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The superior court concluded that the inclusion of the foreclosure costs violated the foreclosure statute and that the UTPA applied to nonjudicial foreclosures. Alaska Trustee appealed. The Supreme Court granted review to determine: (1) the scope of permissible charges to be included in the reinstatement amount given to homeowners facing nonjudicial foreclosure under AS 34.20.070(b); and (2) whether the UTPA applied to nonjudicial deed of trust foreclosures. The Court held that because the beneficiary of a deed of trust has a right to be returned to its status quo ante when the borrower reinstates after a default, Alaska Trustee could include in Bachmeier's reinstatement amount all reasonable costs it incurred pursuing the foreclosure under the foreclosure statute, regardless of whether Bachmeier's deed of trust specifically provided for the inclusion of such costs. Furthermore, the Court held that the UTPA did not apply to nonjudicial deed of trust foreclosures. View "Alaska Trustee, LLC v. Bachmeier" on Justia Law

A commercial tenant (Tenant) remained in possession of property for over ten years after Tenant lost its lease when the property was sold through foreclosure. The new owner (Owner) continually insisted that Tenant vacate the premises, and Tenant ultimately conceded that it had become a tenant at sufferance. Owner filed suit against Tenant, alleging claims for breach of the terminated lease, for trespass and other torts, and for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). The trial court entered summary judgment for Tenant on all claims. The court of appeals reversed and remanded in part. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) a tenant at sufferance cannot be liable for breach of a previously terminated lease agreement; (2) a tenant at sufferance is trespassing and can be liable in tort, including tortious interference with prospective business relations; (3) Tenant in this case could not be liable under the DTPA; and (4) Owner in this case could not recover attorney’s fees under the Texas Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. View "Coinmach Corp. v. Aspenwood Apartment Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging, among other things, fraud and unfair business practices in the origination of plaintiffs' residential mortgage loans, and negligence in the subsequent servicing of the loans. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred in concluding that the complaint failed to allege fraud for which defendants are responsible and in concluding that defendants owed no duty of care to plaintiffs in the review of their applications for a loan modification. The court concluded that plaintiffs have alleged a cause of action for fraud against defendants where the complaint alleged that the loan documents concealed the terms of plaintiffs' loans and plaintiffs have alleged facts establishing defendants' liability for the alleged fraud. Accordingly, the court reversed as to plaintiffs' first, second, and sixth causes of action and remanded for further proceedings. View "Alvarez v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P." on Justia Law

In 2006, Joseph and Mary Romero signed a mortgage contract with the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) as nominee for Equity One, Inc. They pledged their home as collateral for the loan. The Romeros alleged that Equity One urged them to refinance their home for access to the home's equity. The terms of the new loan were not an improvement over their then-current loan: the interest rate was higher and the loan amount due was higher. Despite that, the Romeros would receive a net cash payout they planned to use to pay other debts. The Romeros later became delinquent on their increased loan payments. A third party, Bank of New York (BONY), identified itself as a trustee for Popular Financial Services Mortgage, filed suit to foreclose on the Romeros' home. BONY claimed to hold the Romeros' note and mortgage with the right of enforcement. The Romeros defended by arguing that BONY lacked standing to foreclose because nothing in the complaint established how BONY held their note and mortgage, and that the contracts they signed were with Equity One. The district court found that BONY had established itself as holder of the Romeros' mortgage, and that the bank had standing to foreclose. That decision was appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred in finding BONY's evidence demonstrated that it had standing to foreclose. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings.View "Bank of New York v. Romero" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-appellant Richard Salzer received medical care at an SSM Healthcare of Oklahoma (SSM) facility for injuries he sustained in an accident. At the time of his treatment, he had a health insurance plan (the "Plan"). Salzer entered into a contract with SSM to receive its services (the "Hospital Services Agreement"), under which he "authorized disclosure of [his] medical information for billing purposes and authorized [his] health insurance company to pay." SSM had an existing contract with Salzer's health insurance company (the "Provider Agreement") which required SSM to submit covered medical charges to Salzer's insurance company and accept discounted payment from the insurer. Although the Provider Agreement prohibited SSM from seeking payment for a covered charge from Salzer, SSM sought the non-discounted amount directly from him. Salzer sued SSM alleging breach of contract and other state law claims based on SSM's attempt to collect payment for medical care from Salzer instead of his health insurance company. SSM removed the case to federal district court. Salzer challenged the district court's denial of his motion to remand based on its determination that his claims were completely preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. View "Salzer v. SSM Health Care of Oklahoma" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Trinity EMS, Inc. appealed a circuit court order dismissing its collection action against defendant Timothy Coombs. Plaintiff obtained a default judgment against defendant in 2003. Defendant made some payments, but as of March 2012, the judgment had not been satisfied. Plaintiff filed a new suit in 2012, for a new judgment, which it could use to attach the defendant’s real estate, because the first judgment was outside of the statute of limitations for an action of debt upon a judgment. In dismissing plaintiff's 2012 suit, the trial court ordered that "all hearings should be scheduled in [the 2003 action’s docket]." Plaintiff moved for reconsideration. The court denied the motion, finding (in relevant part): "There is no Cause of Action for obtaining 'an attachment' which is what Plaintiff is seeking. . . . Plaintiff has a judgment. It was apparently never recorded and is beyond the limitation period set forth in RSA 511." On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in dismissing its 2012 action because its complaint set forth a claim upon which relief could have been granted. The Supreme Court disagreed after review of the pertinent New Hampshire case law: plaintiff stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, the Court reversed the dismissal of the plaintiff's action and remanded for further proceedings. View "Trinity EMS, Inc. v. Coombs " on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against defendants, alleging that they violated Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2607, by creating a joint venture (Prosperity) to skirt RESPA's prohibition on kickbacks while failing to disclose this business arrangement to its customers. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion denying plaintiffs' claims because plaintiffs' failed to move for judgment as a matter of law before the jury reached its verdict and because of the highly deferential lenses through which the court must review the issues before it. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Minter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Oklahoma resident Plaintiff-Appellant Samantha Guffey filed a lawsuit against Defendants Odil Ostonakulov and Motorcars of Nashville, Inc. (MNI), a resident of Tennessee and a Tennessee corporation, respectively, in the District Court of Oklahoma County. Guffey alleged fraud and violations of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act in connection with her purchase of a vehicle from Defendants using eBay. The trial court dismissed the action because it determined Oklahoma lacked jurisdiction over Defendants. Guffey appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that because Defendants possessed sufficient minimum contacts with the State of Oklahoma, the district court possessed in personam jurisdiction over Defendants.View "Guffey v. Ostonakulov" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of her consumer rights claim under section 480-2 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (UDAP claim). The court concluded that district courts evaluating whether a borrower's complaint states a claim under sections 480-2 and 480-13 against a lender need only address whether the complaint adequately alleges that the lender used unfair or deceptive acts in its relationship with the borrower, without looking to negligence law to determine whether the lender breached a common law duty of care; rather than requiring proof of a common law duty of care, section 480-2 is better interpreted as imposing a statutory duty on lenders not to engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce; and, given Hawaii's low bar for showing damages, the court concluded that for the purpose of a motion to dismiss plaintiff's allegations that BAC's deceptive conduct caused her to waste two years of effort and incur multiple transaction costs were sufficient to state an injury that caused damages. Therefore, plaintiff has alleged a UDAP claim and the court reversed the district court's judgment, remanding for further proceedings. View "Compton v. Countrywide Financial Corp." on Justia Law

In 2007, plaintiffs Sylvia and Stanley Stroup sued defendants Peter Doran and Peter Doran Landscape Design, LLC for breach of contract, fraud, and consumer fraud after defendants failed to perform landscaping for plaintiffs. Plaintiffs obtained a judgment against defendants. Defendants failed to pay the judgment. Plaintiffs obtained a writ of execution, and the court approved plaintiffs’ motion for trustee process to attach funds owned by defendants and held by Brattleboro Savings and Loan Association (BSL). BSL disclosed to plaintiffs that it held a balance of $2,853.05 in a checking account titled in the name of one of the defendants. A few days later, the parties stipulated that BSL would release $750 to plaintiffs, and that BSL would then be discharged as a trustee and defendant’s account would be free of any lien or charge benefitting plaintiffs. Defendants further agreed to pay $3,500 to plaintiffs before January 31, 2008. BSL paid plaintiffs $750. Plaintiffs claim that defendants never paid the remainder of their debt. In 2013, plaintiffs served BSL with another trustee summons. BSL did not reply within thirty days, and on August 27 plaintiffs moved for default against BSL and entry of judgment against it as trustee for $24,155.12, the balance due under the judgment. The court ordered the clerk to schedule a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion, and directed that a copy of plaintiffs’ motion and the notice of hearing be served on BSL. On September 16, BSL filed a trustee disclosure indicating that it did not have any of defendants’ property in its possession. The court subsequently entered an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for default judgment against BSL. The court stated that “[a]lthough Trustee failed to make a timely disclosure, its disclosure now made in response to Plaintiff[s’] motion for default shows that it holds no assets for the benefit of Defendant[s]. Default judgment under these circumstances would be inequitable.” Plaintiffs appealed. Plaintiffs argued that the trial court erred in denying their motion for default because applicable Vermont law makes default mandatory when a trustee fails to serve a disclosure within thirty days. Plaintiffs did not contest the information contained in the trustee’s disclosure form or request an evidentiary hearing below. See V.R.C.P. 4.2(g) (stating that party who intends to contest information contained in trustee’s disclosure is entitled to evidentiary hearing upon written request). Nor do they contest the information on appeal. Their sole argument before this Court is that default was mandatory under 12 V.S.A. § 3062 and V.R.C.P. 4.2(f). Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Stroup v. Doran" on Justia Law