PUNITIVE DAMAGES UPHELD AGAINST US BANK IN MONTANA CASE

Jeff Barnes, who has previously argued in front of the Montana Supreme Court for homeowners in fraudulent foreclosure cases, explains why banks try to avoid jury trials at all cost.




http://foreclosuredefensenationwide.com/?p=547

Judge upholds $5 Million Punitive Against US BANK, calling behavior 'Abusive"

Judge John Brown of Gallatin County Montana, handed down a stiff order to US BANK this week.
Calling their behavior 'abusive and 'reprehensible in an 22 page brief, the Judge denied US Bank's motion to reduce the punitive damage award to Plaintiff Mary Mcculley. Mcculley filed the lawsuit in 2009, after she was forced to sell her home for $200K less than the appraised value one week prior to foreclosure.  During the litigation, Mcculley claimed US Bank destroyed documents, in addition to the bait and switch she claimed happened at closing.

Although Mcculley applied for a 30-year standard residential loan, she ended up with an 18 month commercial construction loan. Mcculley also accused the lawyers for Defendants of lying to the court and misrepresenting key documents. The jury agreed with her, awarding her $1 million compensatory and $ 5 million in punitive damages after a week long trial in February. US Bank filed motions to reduce the amount of damages, but Montana law states that punitive damages, which are to serve as a deterrent, can be 3% of a company's net worth, or $10 million- which ever is less. Judge Brown explains his decision to uphold the jury's decision:

"This egregious behavior by the Bank constitutes intentional deceit , and supports the conclusion that that the Bank's conduct was reprehensible." Judge brown further cited Seltzer v Morton 2007 MT 62 \stating:

     "Abusive conduct toward and individual which causes the type of harm at issue here
       merits considerable punishment, regardless of the setting in which it takes place.
       However, the fact that [ the Bank] utilized the judicial system as a tool to
      accomplish intimidation and oppression makes this behavior uniquely egregious."

 Mcculley was pro-se until six months before the trial, when Andy Patten and
Patricia Peterman of PPBG, Billings Montana stepped up to the plate. You can read the brief in it's entirety here:
see Judge Brown's order and denial here:http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2014/04/14/judge-upholds-5-million-punitive-against-us-bank-for-fraud/

http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/2014/04/14/judge-upholds-5-million-punitive-against-us-bank-for-fraud/ Mcculley v American Land Title Company and US BANK MT 2013 89 ( supreme court decision )

CA Judge upholds Plaintiff's case for Fraud against Deutsche Bank

Lynn DiRienzo, a successful business owner, purchased a home in 2005 for $1.6 Million, putting down the usual 20% cash. Deutsche Bank, the trustee of the IndyMac Mortgage Loan Trsut 2006-AR1, entered into an agreement with IndyBank as the servicer. OneWest Bank acquired the assets of IndyMac after the FDIC had taken it into receivership, but continued to service the loan as an 'IndyMac' entity.  Two years later, she is notified that her adjustable rate mortgage had reached it's balance cap limit and her payments would double to $9,000.00 a month. She was current with her payments at the time.

The rest of the story we have heard a thousand times; the banks promise to modify it, the banks tell you to miss a few payments in order to qualify. The banks instruct her that in order to qualify for a HAMP loan, she has to be seriously delinquent. What the bank failed to tell her, was that a HAMP modification was impossible, as the principal was over $750,000.
She continued to rely on the banksters, and her credit score drops when she has stopped making payments as instructed. The loan officers now inform her she can't get a loan modification because of her credit score. In 2011, Deutsche initiated foreclosure proceedings.

In this all too familiar scenario, the good news is she fought back, and filed a lawsuit pro-per for four varieties of fraud ( intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, false promise and concealment).  The trial court found she would likely prevail on at least two of her causes of action,(misrepresentation and concealment) and granted a preliminary injunction preventing Deutsche from foreclosing on her home,  pending the outcome of the trial.

Judge Gregory Lewis upheld the lower courts decision on appeal in case Super. Ct. No. 30-2012-00566906

Cheers for Lynn,- and the law offices of Timothy Lea Joens, and Kirk & Tobery
See the latest opinion here:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/G047653.PDF

BankBusters use Social Media to target Banksters

      A new group has emerged on Social Media known as the BankBusters. A recent interview with the founders revealed they plan to raise awareness of the  foreclosure and criminal injustice perpetrated on millions of Americans.        After Wells Fargo admitted to employing dozens of people to track their online reputation, the BankBusters decided to give them something to track. Although the group isn's specifying which banks, and the details of their campaign, it appears that all of the major banks who contributed to the failure of the economy, and the foreclosures of over five million homes to date, will be targeted.   According to one of the founding members:

             L. "It's time we stood together to make a statement that we are mad as hell, and
                   we are not going to take it anymore. They created more American refugees
                   in our own Country than most wars do overseas.
                   It's past the time to fight back, and Social Media is our battleground."

What can the banks do to counter this attack? Nothing, according to the rules of the game.
       
             L  " All is fair in love and war, and this is war. This is not about violence, this is about
                    peace of mind, the kind you get from sitting on your own front porch. The      
                    Banksters have robbed us of the American Dream, our pursuit of happiness
                    has gone the way of picket fences. Enough is enough.

Time will tell what the impact of the 'awareness' campaign as they call it, but given the daily headlines regarding the banks, I for one,  would not choose to be a banker in todays market.

The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap

There is a new book out today by Matt Taibbi called :

 

The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap

Everyday we hear about the '1%' versus the '99%',  thanks to the Occupy movement, but here Matt Taibbi refers to it as the 'Gap'. Be it called a chasm, gap, grand canyon, or a rift- the topic here is the uncrossable barrier between us and them.  The rich don't get punished -the poor do. The banks are untouchable, too big to jail, while someone lies on a loan application and goes to prison.  According to Matt, he taught himself about the financial industry, and has become somewhat of a legend to the thousands of foreclosure warriors in social media. His prior book, Griftopia, about bankers and politicians, was on the New York Times Bestseller list.  In his latest book, The Divide :

          "Matt Taibbi takes readers on a galvanizing journey through both sides of our new system of justice—the fun-house-mirror worlds of the untouchably wealthy and the criminalized poor. He uncovers the startling looting that preceded the financial collapse; a wild conspiracy of billionaire hedge fund managers to destroy a company through dirty tricks; and the story of a whistleblower who gets in the way of the largest banks in America, only to find herself in the crosshairs".

He also delves into another disturbing trend in America ",  Taibbi takes us to the front lines of the immigrant dragnet; into the newly punitive welfare system which treats its beneficiaries as thieves; and deep inside the stop-and-frisk world, where standing in front of your own home has become an arrestable offense. As he narrates these incredible stories, he draws out and analyzes their common source: a perverse new standard of justice, based on a radical, disturbing new vision of civil rights.

“These are the stories that will keep you up at night. . . . The Divide is not just a report from the new America; it is advocacy journalism at its finest.”—Los Angeles Times

I look forward to staying up at night and thank Matt for exposing the corruption at the core of our country. MM   buy the book here : http://www.amazon.com/The-Divide-American-Injustice-Wealth/dp/081299342X

RBS Sale of 93 Branches to US Bank Stalled, Info Withheld !

Update of March 31, 2014

RBS Sale of 93 Branches to US Bank Stalled, Info Withheld, CRA Protests

By Matthew R. Lee http://www.innercitypress.org/usbank.html

SOUTH BRONX, March 26 -- When Royal Bank of Scotland proposed to sell its 93 Chicago-area branches to US Bank, the comment period was set to expire on February 20. Today that was extended to April 25.

The extension or "re-publication of notice" came after Fair Finance Watch and other community advocacy organizations commented to the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, about lending disparities and US Bank's refusal to disclose how many and which of the 93 branches it would close.

FFW commented, back in January, that

While on this disclosure of branches which would be closed the OCC should extend the comment period, for now, to ensure consideration, US Bank NA (Ohio)'s 2012 HMDA data reflect that in the Chicago MSA for home purchase loans both conventional and subsidized, US Bank made a smaller portion of its loans to Latinos than did even the aggregate, including lenders not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act.

For conventional home purchase loans in the Chicago MSA in 2012, US Bank made 1083 such loans to whites, 78 to African Americans and only 77 to Latinos. That is, US Bank made 14 such loans to whites for each loan to a Latino, a bigger disparity than is the case with the aggregate.

For the home purchase loans in Table 4-1 in the Chicago MSA in 2012, US Bank made 268 such loans to whites, 68 to African Americans and only 60 to Latinos. That is, US Bank made 4.47 such loans to whites for each loan to a Latino, a significantly bigger disparity than is the case with the aggregate.

  US Bank replied that it needn't disclose which branches it would close. Fair Finance Watch reiterated its request in Washington DC in mid-March, along with NCRC, and in supplemental comments. And on March 26, the OCC confirmed that the comment period is extended to April 25, and portions of US Bank's response released.

  The problem is that large portions of US Bank's response are withheld, or simply redacted in black Magic Marker, first Tweeted here by @FinanceWatchOrg,click here to view. Fair Finance Watch and Inner City Press immediately filed with the OCC a Freedom of Information Act request

"for all withheld / redacted information from US Bank's March 21, 2014 submission in connection with its application to acquire branches from RBS Charter One. ICP / Fair Finance Watch commented on the application, and earlier today the OCC provided a redacted copy of US Bank's submission. Nearly the entire fair lending response is redacted, as is information about US Bank's claimed support to non-profits. Since such information is presumptively public, it must be unredacted and released. We are challenging each redaction, making this FOIA request for the entire, unredacted submission in this application process we timely challenged."

Now whether these withholdings can stand up must be ruled upon. 

  In terms of commenting of what was released, ICP says "Now that US Bank has admitted to the Federal Reserve that it would eliminate Charter One's Credit Builder and energy efficiency loan programs, and make it more difficult for the customers it would acquire to avoid fees, the Fed should schedule public hearings." 

  Prediction: the document put online yesterday will be reported in the Windy City.http://www.innercitypress.org/usbank.html

Feds chicken out on FIRREA lawsuit against B of A

According to Ben Protess article in Dealbook,  Judge Cayer is recommending to drop the government's lawsuit against Bank of America. In a time where Americans, for the most part, are outraged at the lack of criminal prosecution against the banksters, we have yet another Judge who wants to let them off the hook? Was the $9.3 billion settlement actually a payoff to get out of the criminal charges?

"The lawsuit cites emails from the bank’s employees expressing concern about the quality of the mortgages underling the securities, including one employee who wrote that some mortgages were “like a fat kid in dodge ball, these need to stay on the sidelines."

"Bank of America, which was represented by Skadden Arps, denied the accusations and asked that the case be dismissed. It was assigned to a magistrate judge; holders of that position typically handle scheduling and other procedural matters but occasionally issue rulings as well.

The magistrate judge agreed with Bank of America, concluding that the Justice Department had failed to meet the requirements for a case involving false statements to a government agency. The Federal Home Loan Bank is not an agency. And the Justice Department’s accusations, the magistrate judge ruled, fail to satisfy the requirement that misstatements materially affected the Federal Home Loan Bank’s government regulator"

see the story at DealBook here    http://goo.gl/3AH7lC

Plaintiff wins Reversal against Deutsche , Barclays for Fraud et al.

Congrats to Lenore Albert and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for the
reversal and remand in the wrongful foreclosure of Helen Galope's home.
Lenore Albert successfully pled violations of the Unfair Competition laws,
breach of the covenants of good faith and fair dealing and fraud.

See the decision at http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2014/03/27/12-56892.pdf.



HELEN GALOPE, an individual,
 Plaintiff - Appellant,
 v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, as Trustee under Pooling and
Servicing Agreement dated as of May 1,
2007 Securitized Asset Backed
Receivables LLC Trust 2007-BR4; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2014/03/27/12-56892.pdf.

 Galope adequately alleged that she would not have purchased her loan had
she known that  the Defendants were manipulating the LIBOR rate. Article III standing exists
when a plaintiff purchases a product she would not have otherwise purchased but
for the alleged misconduct of the defendant. Hinojos v. Kohl's Corp., 718 F.3d
1098, 1104 n.3 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 666 F.3d
581, 595 (9th Cir. 2012)); Maya v. Centex Corp., 658 F.3d 1060, 1069 (9th Cir.
2011). Contrary to the dissent’s assertion, Galope’s standing does not turn on
whether she actually made interest payments that were adjusted in response to the
allegedly manipulated LIBOR rate. Galope’s cognizable injury occurred when she

purchased the loan, not upon payment of LIBOR-affected interest.1 Maya, 658

F.3d at 1069. 

1. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings on Galope’s

LIBOR claims against the Barclays Defendants under the Sherman Antitrust Act,

15 U.S.C. §§ 1–2, and her state law claims for breach of the covenant of good faith

and fair dealing, and fraud

2. We reverse the district court’s ruling that Galope lacks statutory standing to

pursue her LIBOR-based Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof.

Code § 17200, and False Advertising Law (“FAL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §

17500, claims against the Barclays Defendants and remand for further proceedings. 

4. We reverse the district court’s rulings that Galope’s wrongful foreclosure

and UCL claims based on the DBNTC Defendants’ violation of the bankruptcy

court’s automatic stay are not justiciable. Although rescission of the sale—almost

seven months after the violation—mooted Galope’s claims for injunctive and

declaratory relief, it did not affect her claim for damages. See Wilson v. State of

Nev., 666 F.2d 378, 380-81 (9th Cir. 1982). Further, regardless of whether Galope

has equity in the home, 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1) provides a statutory basis for

damages.

5. We reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Galope’s

claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing associated with

violation of the automatic stay. The covenant of good faith and fair dealing “finds

particular application in situations where one party is invested with a discretionary

power affecting the rights of another.” Hicks v. E.T. Legg & Associates, 108 Cal.

Rptr. 2d 10, 19 (Ct. App. 2001). Discretionary power of this kind “must be

exercised in good faith.” Carma Developers (Cal.), Inc. v. Marathon Dev.

California, Inc., 826 P.2d 710, 726 (Cal. 1992). T

Citibank Fails Federal Reserve test- Again

Now, the Fed’s action on Wednesday is already prompting calls for another round of changes at the top of the bank’s management.

“There’s no question in our minds that heads should roll,” Mr. Mayo said.

The Fed said that while Citigroup had made progress in the areas of “risk-management and control practices,” its capital planning process “reflected a number of deficiencies.”

The Fed also said that Citigroup had failed to make “sufficient improvement” in certain areas that supervisors had previously identified as “requiring attention.”

In addition to Citigroup, the Fed rejected the capital plans of the American units of three international banks: HSBC, Santander of Spain and the Royal Bank of Scotland, which operates under the Citizens Bank brand in the United States.    Read the whole story here     http://dealbook.nytimes.com/

Bank of America settles $9+ billion fine with Fannie Mae

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, which regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, announced Wednesday afternoon a settlement with Bank of America for about $9.33 billion. The deal will end litigation over the bad mortgages issued leading up to the financial crisis.

The settlement is "an important step in helping restore stability to our broader mortgage market and moving to bring back the role of private firms in providing mortgage credit," said FHFA Director Melvin Watt, in a statement.

The federal agency still has claims in seven suits related to residential mortgage-backed securities.

"This is a fair and appropriate resolution, and we're pleased to move forward with this matter in the rear-view mirror," said Bradley Lerman, executive vice president and general counsel for Fannie Mae. "Fannie Mae remains focused on helping people to buy a house, rent an apartment or avoid foreclosure as we build a stronger housing finance system for the future."http://www.cnbc.com/id/101528427

Help someone buy their home back !

Peace and Blessings All,

I have exciting news, after over 3 years of fighting back against US Bank, protesting with the help of our crew in Springfield, thousands of petition signatures and phone calls from people like you, US Bank has agreed to sell me back my home! 

Thank you for your support in beating back US Bank attack. We’ve fought back and are winning but now I need your support to buy back our home and keep my family and our community together.

I have monthly income now, but because of the foreclosure on my record, I cannot find financing to repurchase my home. I am asking for you support to help me raise $20,000. If I can raise the money we can free the home from the clutches of the bank, repair the home and make sure that our home serves the community, and not the big banks!

Will you support me in closing this deal with a donation today?  

What I really want is to have the bank off my back so that I can stay in the community I love, and continue to stand and fight with others to improve our community.

Alone we don’t have much, but together we can fight, and we can win.

By clicking the link below, I ask that you please make donation if you can and/or share my story, not only to help me, but to also let others know if you are struggling with anything and about to throw in the towel: "NEVER GIVE UP!”

Can you Donate $10, $20, $50 or whatever you can afford to help me take my home back from US Bank!  

Many Blessings, 

Candejah and the Springfield No One Leaves Team.  

http://www.gofundme.com/savecandejahshomeplease

Montana Supreme boasts ruling in favor of Banksters

In a disappointing ruling handed down today by the Montana Supreme Court...

JAS, inc

v

INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B.; CHARLES J. PETERSON,
ESQ.; COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.; LSI
RECORDING DEPARTMENT; NATIONAL TITLE
CLEARING; ONEWEST BANK, FSB; FIRST AMERICAN
TITLE COMPANY OF MONTANA, INC.; MACKOFF
KELLOGG LAW FIRM; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; et al


... ruled that MERS and Bank of America,  and Countrywide, who had no real excuse for not making the required deadlines in the foreclosure and quiet title action, were somehow excused for being tardy, and the default judgment against them was dismissed.  Yes, I am saying that the banksters got more than a second bite of the apple, they were given the Golden Ticket that the rest of us warriors only dream of.

MERS argument was that ' Oh gosh, we didn't know we didn't have a lawyer, so gosh we missed this case,' - they were too busy with the other million foreclosure cases.

Oh what a tangled web MERS did weave, and this case explores another angle of who owns the debt, wheres the note, who's on first?

 Do you think that would work for the rest of us homeowners? Whoops, I missed the notice in the paper, and then six months later- you get the house back?   No, of course not. In my opinion, this case is a disgrace to homeowners and foreclosure fighters around the country.

DA 13-0458

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

2014 MT 77

JAS, INC.,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

RICHARD D. EISELE; LAURIE EISELE; INDYMAC

BANK, F.S.B./DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT;

INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B.; CHARLES J. PETERSON,

ESQ.; COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.; LSI

RECORDING DEPARTMENT; NATIONAL TITLE

CLEARING; ONEWEST BANK, FSB; FIRST AMERICAN

TITLE COMPANY OF MONTANA, INC.; MACKOFF

KELLOGG LAW FIRM; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; CITY FINANCE

DEPARTMENT; YELLOWSTONE COUNTY TREASURER;

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE; and all other

persons, unknown, claiming or who might claim any

right, title, estate, or interest in or lien or encumbrance

upon the real property described in the complaint

adverse to plaintiff’s ownership or any cloud upon

plaintiff’s title thereto, whether such claim or possible

claim be present or contingent,

Defendants and Appellees.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,

In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DV 12-0173

Honorable Mary Jane Knisely, Presiding Judge

March 25 2014

...to continue the hearing, and as a result the hearing was set over until October, past the

60-day deadline. MERS did not raise any concern about this delay, and notably, neither

did JAS. Further, JAS did not argue at the hearing that the court was then precluded by

the passage of time from ruling on the pending motions. Thus, it acquiesced in the delay

and “wait[ed] too long to raise the point.” Green, ¶ 28. We therefore conclude that JAS

forfeited the benefit of the 60-day time prescription, and proceed to address the merits of

the District Court’s order setting aside the default judgment.

¶33 MERS was named as a defendant and personally served with the complaint

through its registered agent on April 23, 2012. On June 28, 2012, the clerk of court

entered default against MERS based upon MERS’s failure to file an answer to the

complaint. On July 10, 2012, the District Court entered final judgment in the case,

resulting in a default judgment against those parties against whom a default had

previously been entered. On July 17, 2012, before learning that a default judgment had

been entered against it, MERS filed a motion to set aside the entry of default by the clerk

of court, arguing that it had “good cause” under M. R. Civ. P. 55(c) (Rule 55) to have the

default set aside. In response to MERS’s motion to set aside the default, JAS pointed out

that a default judgment had been entered by the District Court. Acknowledging as much

in its reply, MERS argued that its neglect in failing to timely respond to the complaint

was excusable, and that it should be relieved of the default judgment pursuant to Rule

60(b)(1).

15

¶34 The District Court proceeded to analyze whether MERS had established “good

cause” to set aside the default judgment, in reliance upon our decision in Blume v.

Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 242 Mont. 465, 791 P.2d 784 (1990). In Blume, Metropolitan

moved to have the default judgment entered against it set aside. The district court did not

rule on the motion within the time allowed under Rule 60(c), and it was deemed denied.

Metropolitan appealed, and we reversed and remanded. Blume, 242 Mont. at 466, 791

P.2d at 785. In analyzing the issue, we focused on Rule 55. The 1989 version of Rule

55(c) provided: “For good cause shown the court may set aside an entry of default and, if

a judgment of default has been entered, may likewise set it aside in accordance with Rule

60(b).” We stated in Blume that, “[a]s noted in Rule 55(c), a default judgment may only

be set aside ‘for good cause shown.’ ” Blume, 242 Mont. at 467, 791 P.2d at 786. We

then repeated and applied the four-prong “good cause” test first enunciated in Bowen v.

Webb, 34 Mont. 61, 85 P. 739 (1906). Under this test, a defaulting party shows “good

cause” when: (1) the defaulting party proceeded with diligence; (2) the defaulting party’s

neglect was excusable; (3) the judgment, if permitted to stand, will affect the defaulting

party injuriously, and (4) the defaulting party has a meritorious defense to plaintiff’s

cause of action. Bowen, 34 Mont. at 65, 85 P. at 740. While we agree with the district

court that the four-part test announced in Bowen is still good law with respect to the

consideration of Rule 60(b)(1) motions, the court in Blume erred to the extent that it

imported the Rule 55(c) “good cause” standard into its analysis of the default judgment.

See Green, ¶ 40 (It is error to import a “good cause” analysis “into cases concerned with

16

setting aside a default judgment.”). However, the District Court’s analysis of the case

under the four-prong test was appropriate.

¶35 MERS argued that it did not respond to the quiet title complaint because it

believed at the time that NTS had been engaged by BOA to protect MERS’s interest and

to represent MERS in JAS’s quiet title action. When MERS discovered NTS was not

representing it, MERS immediately retained counsel. By this time, however, final

judgment had been entered. Counsel for MERS filed its motion to set aside the entry of

default just five days after final judgment was entered. The District Court concluded that

MERS’s failure to file an answer under the stated circumstances constituted excusable

neglect, and that upon learning that it was not represented, MERS had proceeded with

diligence. The court further concluded that MERS would be injured if the default

judgment was left to stand because MERS would lose its interest in the property at issue.

Lastly, the District Court agreed that MERS had a meritorious defense to the quiet title

complaint because the Trustee’s Sale by which JAS acquired the property was defective,

there having been no Affidavit of Mailing recorded prior to the date of the sale, as

required under § 71-1-315(2), MCA. Having concluded that all four prongs of the test set

forth in Blume were satisfied, the District Court granted MERS’s motion to set aside the

default judgment.

¶36 On appeal, JAS claims that MERS has no meritorious defense, and that it would

be unduly prejudiced if we affirm the court’s decision to set aside the default judgment

against MERS. Clearly, the court found the defense regarding the defects in the Trustee’s

17

Sale meritorious. As to prejudice, we note that setting aside the default judgment is not a

fatal blow to JAS, as it will still be free to litigate the merits of its quiet title action on

remand.

¶37 As we held in Essex, this Court will reverse an order setting aside a default

judgment only “upon a showing of a manifest abuse of discretion.” Essex, ¶ 17. Under

the facts presented here, and in light of our stated preference that cases should be decided

on their merits as stated in Matthews, ¶ 9, we cannot conclude that the District Court

manifestly abused its discretion in setting aside the default judgment as to MERS. We

therefore affirm that order.

CONCLUSION

¶38 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude the District Court did not manifestly abuse

its discretion in granting MERS’s motion to set aside the default judgment, nor did it err

in granting BOA’s motion to intervene in this proceeding.

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER

We concur:

/S/ MIKE McGRATH

/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT

/S/ LAURIE McKINNON

/S/ JIM RICE

http://goo.gl/5zWWTi

CREDIT SUISSE to pay $885M over securities sold to Fannie Mae

GENEVA (AP) — Swiss bank Credit Suisse says it will pay $885 million to settle lawsuits over securities sold to U.S. government-controlled mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the financial crisis.

The bank said Friday the agreement with the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie and Freddie, will result in it taking a 275 million-franc ($311 million) charge on last year's fourth-quarter earnings.

Credit Suisse says the settlement resolves all claims in two lawsuits filed by the FHFA, related to the sale of about $16.6 billion in residential mortgage-backed securities between 2005 and 2007. The securities soured when the housing market collapsed.

Credit Suisse says the earnings adjustment resulting from the charge means it lost 8 million francs in the fourth quarter.

OCCUPY PROTESTER REACHES $4.5M SETTLEMENT WITH OAKLAND

OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) — An Iraq War veteran whose skull was fractured during an Occupy Oakland protest when he was hit by a beanbag round fired by police has reached a $4.5 million agreement to settle a federal lawsuit with the city of Oakland, his lawyers and city officials announced Friday.

Scott Olsen, 26, sued the city in 2012 for medical expenses and injuries that also included a fractured vertebrae and hemorrhaging of the brain. Olsen was among more than 1,000 demonstrators protesting the police clearing of an Occupy Oakland encampment when struck by a beanbag fired by an officer outside City Hall on Oct. 25, 2011.

Olsen, who served two tours of duty as a U.S. Marine in Iraq, suffered permanent brain injuries and has not been able to return to his career as a computer systems administrator, his attorney Rachel Lederman said Friday. Olsen's lawyers said police investigators concluded he was struck by the round that was fired by an officer less than 30 feet away during the 2011 clash.

"We're pleased that Scott is finally going to be getting some compensation for this really devastating injury," Lederman said. "He sustained some pretty serious brain damage resulting from being shot at a very close range."

Volcker Rule Will Cost Banks Up to $4.3 Billion

 

The regulator estimates implementation costs between $413 million and $4.3 billion for banks it supervises, the OCC said in a report released yesterday. Most of the potential costs could come from the rule’s curbs on certain investments, such as in some collateralized loan obligations. The agency also said affected banks will mostly be those with more than $10 billion in assets and could include as many as seven community banks.

The Volcker Rule, which bans banks from making speculative trades with their own money and limits their stakes in certain private funds, was adopted Dec. 10 by five U.S. financial regulators. The rule, named for former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, imposed the restrictions in response to the 2008 credit crisis.

Woman awarded $6M in fraud case against US Bank

Montana March 2014   A woman who sued US Bank alleging the company defrauded her when she sought a $300,000 loan to buy a condo in Bozeman has been awarded $6 million in damages.
    
Gallatin County jury found US BANK guilty of actual fraud and constructive fraud, and on Friday awarded  Mary McCulley $1 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages.
    
McCulley filed suit in June 2009, alleging that US BANK sent her the required 30- year Truth in Lending documents, and instead gave her an 18-month commercial loan. She also claimed the forged deed of trust, which recorded her property as commercial, instead of residential, kept her from being able to refinance with other banks. 
    
McCulley's attorney, Patricia Peterman of Billings, said the verdict was fair.  The lead defense attorney, Mark Sherer / Mackoff Kellogg, for US Bank was not available for comment.

Bank ordered to pay $3.2 Million for 'shocking 'foreclosure

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — A New Mexico judge has issued a $3.2 million judgment against Wells Fargo for foreclosing on a man's home after his death, even though he had purchased an insurance policy through the bank that would have paid the remaining balance on his mortgage.

District Judge Beatrice Brickhouse said the bank's conduct was shocking and so reprehensible that in addition to actual damages, attorney's fees and court costs, she awarded James Dollens' estate $2.7 million in punitive damages.

Brickhouse issued the ruling Feb. 14. It was reported Friday by the Albuquerque Journal.

Jim Hines, a spokesman for San Francisco-based Wells Fargo, said the bank will appeal and it disagrees with several parts of the ruling, including the award of punitive damages.

Katy Duhigg-Kennedy, a lawyer for Dollens' estate, said Friday that the ruling "protected people over profits. We are confident that the appellate courts will do the same."

Butte jury's $52 million verdict against bank possibly highest in Montana history

BUTTE — A Butte jury delivered a $52 million verdict Friday against a bank that received billions in federal bailout dollars, but refused to use the money to help a flailing client — an international company that planned to take root in Butte.

The office supply company Masters Group International filed suit against its former bank — Comerica — after the bank reneged on a written forbearance agreement and liquidated the company’s assets while Masters was trying to set up shop in Butte during the recession.

“That act effectively led to the death of the company,” Timothy Strauch, Masters’ attorney told jurors.

Strauch and Mick Taleff — both Missoula-based attorneys — represented Masters during the 10-day trial in Butte district court that resulted in a monetary verdict that Strauch said may be the highest in Montana history.

The suit was initially filed by the Butte Local Development Corp. against Masters, but the business brought the bank in as a third-party defendant. Strauch explained that Masters didn’t have the money it owed the Butte development group because Comerica had breached its contract and taken Masters’ money.

“There are two Americas,” Strauch said in an interview Tuesday. “Comerica — a company in America where the rules don’t apply — and then there’s America, where the rest of us live and the rules do apply.”

In 2006, Comerica offered the start-up company $9.5 million in a revolving line of credit — meaning as long as Masters made its payments, more money could be borrowed.

Strauch argued the bank did so, knowing that Masters was a long way from generating any cash flow. The two-year loan was slated to expire in 2008, and the company borrowed another $1 million from the bank in that time.

Initially, Comerica told Masters it would renew the loan in 2008, but when the recession hit, the bank refused to renew the loan, Strauch said.

When Masters asked for Comerica to use part of its $2.25 billion in federal bailout funds to help it stay afloat, Comerica refused. And Masters was forced to search for an alternative funding source.

“It is not easy . to replace a loan of $10 million or $10.5 million in the middle of a banking crisis,” Strauch said in court.

But the company did find an alternative source, securing a proposal from Wells Fargo to replace Comerica as the operating lender and pay back the $10.5 million borrowed from Comerica. It additionally extended the line of credit to Masters — allowing them an extra $2.5 million “it so desperately had been needing for months to grow and sustain.”

The switch from one lender to the other was slated to occur in February 2009, with the condition that Masters could not be in default with Comerica when Wells Fargo took over. In November 2008, Masters and Comerica signed the forbearance agreement, in which the bank agreed to take no action to collect its loan until February, Strauch said.

But on New Year’s Eve, Comerica took all the money from Masters’ accounts — nearly $9 million — while continuing to charge the company interest, maintenance fees and $82,000 in attorneys’ fees.

“Each time Masters asked the bank for a payoff, it was simply asking how much do we owe you,” Strauch said in his arguments. “Comerica charged it thousands in attorney fees for the simple pleasure of telling Masters how much it owed.”

The result was the destruction of the company — abroad, it shuttered its doors, and it halted any progress in Butte.

After 10 days at trial, the jury spent three hours in deliberation and awarded $41.5 million in compensatory damages and $10.5 million in punitive damages to Masters.

“I think it took a jury in Montana to render this verdict,” Strauch said Tuesday. “Where fair is fair and a deal is a deal.”

In a statement released Tuesday, Comerica CEO Ralph Babb Jr. stated the bank is considering appealing the verdict to the Montana Supreme Court.

Strauch said he is concerned that the bank may appeal the decision. He also expressed frustration that the penalty the company must pay is only a fraction of its entire worth.

“They did something wrong,” Strauch said. “Americans understand that and they are tired of it. This case just exemplifies the division of the haves and the have-nots.”

Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/butte-jury-s-million-verdict-against-bank-possibly-highest-in/article_194d857e-9c68-505b-918d-38538f4ca98c.html#ixzz2wRbRv9L1

The five million dollar punishment

Add caption