Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

MERSCORP operates an online membership organization that records, trades, and forecloses loans on behalf of many lenders. Banks can register their mortgages on the system and assign the mortgages to MERSCORP, which then records them in the counties in which the mortgaged properties are located. MERSCORP has no financial interest in the mortgages. The underlying debts can be repeatedly assigned without transfers being recorded in a public‐records office, facilitating successive interbank sales of mortgages, often to create mortgage‐backed securities. Union County, Illinois filed a class action suit on behalf of all Illinois counties against MERSCORP and banks that do business with MERSCORP, claiming that MERSCORP is violating a statute that requires every Illinois mortgage be recorded; 765 ILCS 5/28 provides that deeds, mortgages, powers of attorney, and other instruments relating to or affecting the title to real estate “shall be recorded in the county in which such real estate is situated.” The district court dismissed, holding that Illinois law does not require that mortgages be recorded, without deciding whether to certify it as a class action. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, declining to certify the issue to the Illinois Supreme Court. View "Union Countyv. Merscorp, Inc." on Justia Law

In a proposed class action, Schilke alleged that Wachovia, her lender and holder of a mortgage on her home, fraudulently placed insurance on her property when her homeowner’s policy lapsed. Wachovia secured the replacement coverage from ASI and charged her for it, as specifically permitted by her loan agreement. The premium was more than twice what she had paid for her own policy and included a commission to Wachovia’s insurance-agency affiliate, also as permitted under the loan agreement. Schilke calls the commission a “kickback” and asserted statutory and common-law claims, most sounding in fraud or contract. The district court dismissed based on federal preemption and the filed-rate doctrine. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The loan agreement and related disclosures and notices conclusively show that there was no deception at work. Wachovia fully disclosed that lender-placed insurance could be significantly more expensive than her own policy and could include a fee or other compensation to the bank and its insurance-agency affiliate. Maintaining property insurance was Schilke’s contractual obligation and she failed to fulfill it. . View "Schilke v. Am. Sec. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Anobah was an Illinois-licensed loan officer, employed by AFFC, and acted as a loan officer for at least two fraudulent schemes. Developers Brown and Adams recruited Mason to act as a nominee buyer of a property and referred Mason to Anobah for preparation of a fraudulent loan application. The application contained numerous material falsehoods concerning Mason’s employment, assets, and income, and intent to occupy the property. Anobah, Brown, and others created fraudulent supporting documents. AFFC issued two loans in the amount of $760,000 for the property and ultimately lost about $290,000 on those loans. In the course of the scheme, AFFC wired funds from an account in Alabama to a bank in Chicago, providing the basis for a wire fraud charge. Anobah played a similar role in other loan applications for other properties and ultimately pled guilty to one count of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343. The district court sentenced him to 36 months of imprisonment, five months below the low end of the calculated guidelines range. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, upholding application of guidelines enhancements for abuse of a position of trust and for use of sophisticated means in committing the fraud. View "United States v. Anobah" on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the Indiana Unclaimed Property Act, Ind. Code 32‐34‐1‐1, as authorizing confiscation of private property without compensation. The Act states that property is presumed abandoned if the apparent owner has not communicated in writing with the holder or otherwise indicated interest in the property within a specified period. When the presumption applied, the holder (here, a bank) is required to try to notify the owner and to submit, within 60-120 days after that, a report including the owner’s last known address to the state attorney general, and to simultaneously transfer the property to the attorney general. The following year, the attorney general must attempt notice by publication. Notice is also posted on an official website. The owner can reclaim the property from the state for 25 years after its delivery before it escheats to the state. An owner who files a valid claim is entitled only to principal, and not to any interest earned on it. Plaintiff’s ward had an interest‐bearing account. The presumption of abandonment applied in 2006, three years after the last communication. Because the statute does not require individualized notice if the value of the account is less than $50, plaintiff (guardian) did not learn about the account until 2011. The district court dismissed her challenge to the “taking” of interest on the account. The Seventh Circuit reversed. View "Cerajeski v. Zoeller" on Justia Law

Med‐1 buys delinquent debts and purchased Suesz’s debt from Community Hospital. In 2012 it filed a collection suit in small claims court and received a judgment against Suesz for $1,280. Suesz lives one county over from Marion. Though he incurred the debt in Marion County, he did so in Lawrence Township, where Community is located, and not in Pike Township, the location of the small claims court. Suesz says that it is Med‐1’s practice to file claims in Pike Township regardless of the origins of the dispute and filed a purported class action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act venue provision requiring debt collectors to bring suit in the “judicial district” where the contract was signed or where the consumer resides, 15 U.S.C. 1692i(a)(2). The district court dismissed after finding Marion County Small Claims Courts were not judicial districts for the purposes of the FDCPA. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.View "Suesz v. Med-1 Solutions, LLC" on Justia Law

Wells Fargo and Hindman were creditors of Clark, whose president and CEO was Hindman’s son. Wells Fargo agreed to extend credit to the companies if Hindman agreed to become a subordinated creditor. Hindman executed subordination agreements. In 2010 Hindman authorized a wire transfer of $750,000 from his personal investment account at Wells Fargo to Clark at the request of his son. By that time, however, his son purportedly had been stripped of authority to make business decisions by Clark. When authorized decision makers learned about the purported loan, they ordered Hindman’s son to reject the funds. Hindman’s son promptly instructed a Wells Fargo Bank vice‐president to stop the transaction, but $750,000 arrived in Clark’s accounts and was automatically used to pay down its Wells Fargo line of credit. Days later, the same Wells Fargo vice‐president transferred $750,000 from Clark’s account to Hindman’s account at a Florida bank at Hindman’s request. Wells Fargo claimed that Hindman’s receipt of the $750,000 violated subordination agreements because Clark repaid a debt to Hindman while it had outstanding obligations to Wells Fargo. Hindman maintained that a valid loan was never consummated because his son could not bind the company and authorized decision makers rejected the proposed loan. The Seventh Circuit vacated summary judgment, reasoning that the district court failed to explain its rejection of Hindman’s plausible arguments. View "Wells Fargo Bus. Credit v. Hindman" on Justia Law

Todd alleges that in 2012 he received a recorded telephone message from Collecto asking him to call and help the company locate his mother, Terry. He called; a Collecto representative told him that Terry owed AT&T money for cell phone service. Todd stated that he is not Terry, but the representative continued to discuss the alleged debt without asking how to reach Terry or asking Todd to pay the bill. Todd claimed that this interaction harmed him emotionally and violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692b, which permits a debt collector to call a third party for help in locating a “consumer” but prohibits revealing the existence of the consumer’s debt to the third party. Section 1692f prohibits “unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect any debt.” The district court concluded that Todd lacked standing under the Act. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that Todd lacked standing under 1692b and failed to state a claim under 1692f. View "Todd v. Collecto, Inc." on Justia Law

The defendants, affiliated companies, owned ATMs in Indianapolis bars that were popular with college students. Plaintiffs filed a purported class action, based on violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, 15 U.S.C. 1693b(d)(3). At the time, the Act required a sticker notice on the ATM and an onscreen notification during transactions. Defendants provided onscreen notice but not, according to the complaint, a sticker. The Act has been amended to remove the sticker notice requirement. The district court decertified the class. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that the district judge did not provide adequate explanation. While the compensatory function of the class action has no significance in this case, the damages sought by the class, and, more importantly, the attorney’s fee that the court will award if the class prevails, will likely make the suit a wake‐up call and have a deterrent effect on future violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. View "Hughes v. Kore of IN Enters., Inc." on Justia Law

Gray’s friend Johnson offered to act as co‐borrower to help Gray buy a house, if Gray promised that she would only be on the loan as a co‐borrower for two years. In return, Johnson received a finder’s fee from the daughter of the builder-seller (Hinrichs). Mortgage broker Bowling sent their application to Fremont, a federally insured lender specializing in stated‐income loans, with which the lender typically did not verify financial information supplied by applicants. Bowling testified that he told both women that they would be listed as occupants, that their incomes would be inflated, and what the monthly payment would be. The closing proceeded; Gray and Johnson received a $273,700 mortgage from Fremont and, on paper, a $48,300 second mortgage from Hinrichs. Gray and Johnson acknowledge that the application that they signed contained several false statements. Bowling became the subject of a federal investigation. Sentenced to 51 months’ imprisonment, he agreed to testify against his clients. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions of Gray and Johnson under 18 U.S.C. 1014, which prohibits “knowingly” making false statements to influence the action of a federally insured institution. Rejecting an argument that the district court erred by denying an opportunity to present testimony to show Bowling’s history of duping clients, the court stated that his prior wrongdoing was not very probative of Gray’s and Johnson’s guilt. View "United States v. Gray" on Justia Law

Before its 2007 bankruptcy, Sentinel was an investment manager. Its customers were not typical investors; most were futures commission merchants (FCMs), which operate in the commodity industry like to the securities industry’s broker‐dealers. Through Sentinel, FCMs’ client money could, in compliance with industry regulations, earn a decent return while maintaining the liquidity FCMs need. To accept capital from FCM customers, Sentinel had to register as an FCM, but it did not solicit or accept orders for futures contracts; it received a no‐action letter from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) exempting it from certain requirements applicable to FCMs. Sentinel represented that it would maintain customer funds in segregated accounts as required under the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 1. In reality, Sentinel pledged hundreds of millions of dollars in customer assets to secure an overnight loan at the Bank of New York. Sentinel’s bankruptcy trustee claimed fraudulent transfer, equitable subordination, and illegal contract, in an effort to dislodge the Bank’s secured position. The district court rejected all of the claims. The Seventh Circuit reversed, rejecting a finding that Sentinel’s failure to keep client funds properly segregated was insufficient to show actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud. View "In re Sentinel Mgmt. Grp., Inc." on Justia Law