Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Commentary : In Their Opinion : Lawyer & Attorney Michael E. Rigney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

MARR v. BANK OF AMERICA (December 6, 2011)

In 2007, Richard Marr refinanced his home mortgage with Countrywide Bank. Summit Title closed the loan in February. Marr signed an acknowledgment at that time that he had been given two copies of the right to rescind notice, as required by the Truth in Lending Act. The closing agent gave Marr the closing documents, which he alleges he put in a folder and kept in a filing cabinet in his home. Two years later, his attorney inspected the folder in connection with an unrelated matter and discovered only one copy of the notice to rescind. Marr brought suit to rescind, relying on the statutory three-year rescission period when a lender fails to provide two copies of the notice. He testified that he removed nothing from the closing folder between the time he received it and the time he turned it over to his lawyer. The closing agent testified regarding the standard procedures for closing, which included providing the borrower with two copies of the notice. Marr testified that the February closing did not follow the standard procedures outlined in the agent’s affidavit. Judge Stadtmueller (E.D. Wis.) granted summary judgment to the defendants based on the rebuttable presumption created by Marr’s signed acknowledgment. The court ruled that his testimony was not enough to overcome the presumption. Marr appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Wood, Tinder, and Hamilton reversed and remanded. The Court first noted that the Act does create a rebuttable presumption but that it does so by saying that it "does no more than" create the presumption. The Court interpreted this language as a warning to courts to not overvalue the presumption. The Third Circuit has recently ruled that the borrowers testimony by itself is sufficient to overcome the presumption. The Court declined to adopt that extreme a position because Marr presented more than that: the folder contained only one copy of the notice, he testified that he removed nothing from the folder, and he testified that the closing agent did not follow standard operating procedures during closing. A reasonable jury could believe that he received only one copy of the notice.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

BONTE v. U.S. BANK (October 19, 2010)

Travis and Jolene Bonte own a home in the small village of Woodville in west-central Wisconsin. In late 2005, they took out a third mortgage on the home. A few years later, the Bontes brought an action for rescission. They alleged that there were ten discrepancies between the HUD-1 settlement statement and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) statement and disclosures. U.S. Bank, the mortgage holder, moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It argued that none of the errors alleged related to a “material” disclosure as required for TILA rescission. In response, the Bontes simply restated their allegations and the applicable legal standard. Judge Crocker (W.D. Wis.) dismissed the complaint, holding that the Bontes waived their opposition to the motion by failing to respond but also concluding that U.S. Bank was correct. The Bontes appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Posner, Rovner, and Sykes affirmed. The Court agreed with U.S. Bank’s statement of the applicable law – that rescission (at least after three days) requires proof of a “material” non-disclosure. Regulation Z identifies eighteen required disclosures and names five of them as material: the APR, the finance charge, the amount financed, the total of payments, and the payment schedule. The Court noted that the Bontes alleged that the ten errors related to the APR, the finance charge, and the amount financed. But U.S. Bank went through each of the errors and showed how they did not related to any material disclosure. The Bank provided citations and reasons why each did not qualify as a material disclosure. The Court noted that the Bontes failed to respond to any of the Bank’s arguments. Just as they did in the district court, they merely restated their conclusory allegation that the errors related to material disclosures. Iqbal requires a two-step approach. The Bontes meet the first step – a “short and plain statement” of their claim. But they failed, said the Court, to satisfy the second prong – demonstrating a plausible entitlement to relief. Just because they couched their allegation of materiality as a factual allegation, a court is not required to accept it as true. It is, in fact, a legal conclusion – not a factual allegation. By failing to respond to the Bank’s arguments, they have waived any argument that the errors related to material disclosures.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

MURO v. TARGET CORP. (August 31, 2009)

Christine Muro held a Target "Guest Card" for a few years. In late 1999, she paid off the balance and requested that her account be closed. In 2004, Target sent her an unsolicited Visa Card. Muro never used, or even activated, the card. She brought an action under §§ 1637 and 1642 of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). With respect to § 1642, which prohibits the unsolicited issuance of a credit card, the court denied class certification. It concluded that Muro's claims were not typical of the claims of most of the proposed class (because most of the class members had an open “Guest Card” account) and that she had failed to establish numerosity with respect to the claims for which her claims were typical. Muro settled her individual § 1642 claim, reserving the right to appeal the denial of class certification. The court granted summary judgment to Target and denied class certification on the § 1637 claims. Muro appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Ripple, Rovner and Evans affirmed. With respect to § 1642, the Court noted that the narrow issue was whether a named plaintiff in a putative class action could settle her individual claim and still appeal an adverse decision on class certification. Referring to the Supreme Court's decisions in Geraghty and Roper, the Court stated that a plaintiff has to have a personal stake in the adjudication of the certification issue to maintain an appeal. The Court recognized a difference of opinion among courts as to whether a mere reservation of a right to appeal is sufficient interest to maintain an appeal. Upon reflection, the Court concluded that a voluntary settlement by a putative class plaintiff strips the plaintiffs of any personal interest in the litigation sufficient to support an appeal. Here, although Muro accepted the settlement with a reservation of her right to appeal, she retains no stake in the litigation and no right to appeal. As an aside, the Court indicated its agreement with the district court on the merits of its denial of class certification. With respect to § 1637, which requires certain disclosures before "opening" an account, the Court also agreed with the lower court. The issue on the § 1637 claim was when an account is "opened." The TILA is silent but the Federal Reserve Board regulations require the disclosures before the first transaction. Concurring with the regulation's approach, the Court noted that Muro had never activated or used her card. She had no § 1637 claim.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SWANSON v. BANK OF AMERICA (April 24, 2009)

The Court denied rehearing in a case originally decided on March 19 and reported here. The Ninth Circuit released an opinion at odds with the Court's on March 16 (and therefore not considered or discussed in the March 19 opinion), Nevertheless, the Court stuck with its analysis and remarked that the Ninth Circuit panel was at odds with an earlier, nonprecedential opinion of the same court.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

SWANSON v. BANK OF AMERICA (March 19, 2009)

Bank of America issued a credit card to Laura Swanson. Pursuant to the credit agreement, Bank of America could increase the interest rate if her balance exceeded her credit limit twice in any 12-month period. The higher interest rate was to take effect at the beginning of the billing cycle to which it applied. Swanson exceeded her credit limit at the close of the August 2007 and November 2007 cycles. Bank of America applied the higher interest rate effective at the beginning of the November cycle. Swanson brought suit, alleging that a Truth in Lending Act regulation precludes the imposition of a higher interest rate in that circumstance. The district court granted judgment to the bank. Swanson appeals.

In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Kanne and Evans affirmed. The Court first analyzed the regulation at issue. Although both the bank and Swanson argued that the regulations supported its position, the Court concluded that the regulation did not squarely address the issue at hand. It therefore consulted the commentary. The bank relies on the comment that states that no notice of the change is required if the specific change is set forth in the initial agreement. The comment gives as examples an increased rate after a lower introductory rate and an increased rate when a customer fails to keep a promised minimum account balance. Swanson, on the other hand, relies on the comment that notice must be given if the contract allows the creditor to increase the rate at its discretion. The Court noted that one appellate court and at least six trial courts had considered the issue and had all agreed with the bank's position. Finding these decisions "sensible," the Court also agreed with the bank. It pointed out that the contract between the bank and Swanson allowed the practice. An ambiguous regulation with an ambiguous commentary was not enough to override the specific contract term. Finally, the Court observed that the Federal Reserve had promulgated a new regulation that would prohibit the vary practice at issue. The new regulation is not effective until July of 2010 -- Swanson must live with the law as it stands today.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

DOSS v. CLEARWATER TITLE (December 24, 2008)

Doss refinanced his home. First Franklin Financial Corporation (“Franklin”) loaned him $135,000 on the condition that he obtain title insurance. He did so. At closing, the itemization of costs indicated that he paid $500 for the title insurance. In fact, he paid almost $1500. Doss filed suit against Franklin and others, alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act. The court entered a default judgment against Franklin, which Franklin moved to set aside. Other defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, alleging that Doss sold his home before filing suit. Although Doss disputed this fact in the district court, the court nevertheless granted the motion and dismissed the TILA count. The court then exercised its discretion to dismiss the state law claims as well. It also struck “as moot” all pending motions, including Franklin’s motion to set aside the default. Doss appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Wood and Tinder reversed and remanded. The Court first rejected defendants’ argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction because of Doss’ sale of the property. TILA does provide that the right of rescission expires upon the sale of the property. That provision is not jurisdictional, however. It is simply a precondition to substantive relief. The Court also addressed its own jurisdiction, given that the district court dismissed without prejudice. Although a dismissal without prejudice is usually not appealable, the Court held that the case fit within an exception. The Court will entertain an appeal where it is clear that the court below was finished with the case and where TILA’s three year period of repose would have prevented Doss from refiling the case.

On the merits, the Court held that the district court erred in relying on the deed, a matter outside the pleading, in granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Instead, the court should have converted the motion to a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment and given Doss a chance to respond. Furthermore, the deed was not a subject for judicial notice since its very validity was in dispute. The Court added that a) Franklin’s motion was not moot but since it did not cross-appeal, the default judgment is final, and b) the state law claims should be reinstated.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

ANDREWS v. CHEVY CHASE BANK (September 24, 2008)

The Andrews refinanced their home through Chevy Chase Bank in 2004. They knew a great deal about mortgages, having taken out many for both residential and investment properties. For their 2004 mortgage, they chose a unique and flexible loan that allowed them to vary their monthly payment based on their cash flow. Chevy Chase provided preliminary disclosures, truth-in-lending disclosures at closing, and an adjustable rate rider. The Andrews believed that the minimum monthly payment and interest rate were fixed for a term of five years. In fact, the minimum monthly payment was fixed but the lender adjusted the interest rate each month. The Andrews filed a class action against Chevy Chase Bank, alleging that its disclosures were confusing, misleading, and violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). They sought statutory damages, rescission, and attorneys’ fees. The district court granted summary judgment to the Andrews on their rescission and fees claims and denied their claim for statutory damages. The court also granted class certification under FRCP 23(b)(2) and declared that all class members would have the ability to rescind. Chevy Chase appeals.

In their opinion, Judges Manion, Evans (dissenting), and Sykes reversed. The majority noted that TILA allows class actions in a damages action but whether a class can be certified in a TILA rescission action is a matter of first impression in the Seventh Circuit. The First and Fifth Circuits and the California Supreme Court have each held that it cannot. The Court first examined the rescission remedy in TILA. Unlike a statutory or actual-damages remedy, rescission requires the unwinding of a particular transaction and imposes duties on the creditor and debtor in working out the logistics of the rescission. These variations, in the Court’s view, make rescission a poor candidate for class action procedures. The panel distinguished the Supreme Court’s Yamasaki decision, which held that class relief is appropriate “[i]n the absence of a direct expression by Congress” otherwise. The Court focused on the distinction between the jurisdictional statute in Yamasaki and the private rescission process written into the TILA. The majority conceded that the presence of a cap in class action suits seeking damages, and not suits seeking rescission, can support either argument. It can be read to just mean that Congress intended no cap in rescission suits, but the majority thinks that interpretation “strains credulity” and opts instead for the explanation that Congress did not provide a class action vehicle for the rescission remedy. The majority considered and rejected the Andrews’ other arguments.

In dissent, Judge Evans first stated that the statute is unambiguous and does not present a legal bar to a rescission class action, relying on Yamasaki. He added that, even if ambiguous, the statute should be construed consistent with and supported by the language and purpose of the statute. Thus, TILA should favor the victims of the ills sought to be controlled by its terms. Judge Evans also addressed the individual nature of the unwinding process relied on by the majority. He noted that a particular class may not meet the requirements of Rule 26, but whether it does depends on Rule 26, not the TILA.
  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link