Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Leon County appealed the dismissal of its complaint against the FHFA, it's acting director, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, Leon County argued that by directing Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks to refrain from purchasing mortgages encumbered with certain first-priority lien obligations, some of which were held by Leon County, the FHFA engaged in rulemaking without providing notice and comment pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 12 U.S.C. 4526(b). The court agreed with the district court that, under the specific facts in this case, the FHFA's directive not to purchase Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) encumbered mortgages was within the FHFA's broad powers as conservator. Accordingly, because 12 U.S.C. 4617(f) provided that "no court may take any action to restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the [FHFA] as a conservator or receiver," the district court held that section 4617(f) barred Leon County's claims. View "Leon County Florida, et al v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, in two separate appeals, challenged the grant of motions to dismiss in favor of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). The court affirmed the district courts' conclusion that 12 U.S.C. 4617 precluded judicial review of a Directive issued by the FHFA to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks. The court also held that plaintiffs have failed to show that it was likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that their claims against the OCC would be redressed by vacatur of the Bulletin at issue, and therefore, the claims against the OCC were properly dismissed for lack of standing. View "Town of Babylon v. Federal Housing Finance Agency; Natural Resources Defense Council v. Federal Housing Finance Agency" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a realtor, filed suit under the California False Claims Act (CFCA), Cal. Gov't Code 12650-12655, against defendants on behalf of numerous California counties, alleging that defendants made false representations in naming MERS as a beneficiary in recorded mortgage documents in order to avoid paying recorded fees. Defendants moved to dismiss the qui tam action under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the district court erred in dismissing his claims as jurisdictionally barred, the court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Bates v. Mortgage Electronic Registration, et al" on Justia Law

The Mississippi Department of Revenue (MDOR) issued a subpoena to Pikco Finance, Inc. (Pikco), requesting documentation pertaining to Pikco's nonpayment of finance company privilege taxes. Pikco filed a petition to quash the subpoena on the basis that MDOR's ability to audit and tax under Mississippi's Finance Company Privilege Tax law was preempted by the National Bank Act. The circuit court granted Pikco's petition to quash, and MDOR appealed. The issue on appeal was whether MDOR's use of its statutory subpoena power in administration of the Finance Company Privilege Tax was preempted by the National Bank Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded, finding that Pikco was subject to the subpoena.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) sought an order to prohibit brothers George and Robert Michael, former owners, directors, (Robert), officer of Citizens Bank, from participation in the affairs of any insured depository, 12 U.S.C. 1818(e)(7), and civil penalties, 12 U.S.C. 1818(i), for violations of Federal Reserve regulations, breaches of fiduciary duty, and unsafe and unsound practices. The ALJ issued a 142-page decision with detailed findings showing that the Michaels engaged in insider transactions and improper lending practices and recommending that the FDIC Board issue a prohibition order and civil penalties. The FDIC Board affirmed the decision. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Michaels urged overturn of numerous adverse credibility determinations and proposed inferences from the record in a way that paints a picture of legitimacy despite the Board’s contrary determinations. The court noted the deference owed the agency determination and found substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision..

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as receiver for Darby Bank & Trust Co., appealed an order of the district court that remanded the underlying case the action to state court. The district court determined that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction because the FDIC had not been formally substituted as a party in the state court action prior to removal. After review, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's remand order. The Court held that, as a matter of federal law, the FDIC is "substituted as a party" in a state court proceeding under 12 U.S.C. 1819(b)(2)(B) once it is appointed receiver and files a notice of substitution, and may at that point remove the action to federal court."

Plaintiffs are the sole shareholder and Chairman of Miami Valley Bank and also own stock in a mortgage lender with which the bank had loan agreements. In 2007, the FDIC began investigating the loan agreements. State and federal regulators closed the bank and appointed the FDIC as a receiver. The FDIC purportedly halted its investigation when an accounting expert confirmed that the loans were legal. The mortgage company then petitioned the receiver for $10 million that the bank owed the mortgage lender. In retaliation for the $10 million request, FDIC investigator Stevens allegedly prompted the FDIC to resume the investigation of the bank. The plaintiffs then sued Stevens, alleging that the retaliatory investigation violated the First Amendment, a “Bivens” action. Stevens died after the lawsuit began. The plaintiffs argued that their Bivens action survived his death, regardless of whether their claim would survive under state law. The district court held that state law controls the survivability of Bivens actions, subject to one inapplicable exception. The court applied Ohio law, under which the death of Stevens extinguished the claims against him. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Before the 2008 financial crisis, six AIG subsidiaries sold Sharia-compliant financing products. Sharia refers to Islamic law; an SCF product uses a portion of product reserves to fulfill the Islamic duty of charitable giving and does not invest premiums in industries dealing with pork, alcohol, interest, gambling, or pornography. The subsidiaries are consolidated in AIG financial statements and received part of the funds AIG received in 2008, when the Federal Reserve Bank of New York lent AIG $85 billion in exchange for AIG shares. The Treasury Department also took an ownership stake in AIG by committing $40 billion pursuant to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, established under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, 12 U.S.C. 5201–61. Treasury committed $ 30 billion to AIG in 2009, in exchange for more stock. Plaintiff challenged EESA, arguing that it violated the Establishment Clause for the government to allow a portion of the capital given to AIG to support the marketing of SCF products. Plaintiff is a Michigan resident, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, a Catholic, and a taxpayer. His status as a federal taxpayer is his sole basis for asserting standing. The district court entered summary judgment for defendants. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Christa Albice and Karen Tecca (hereinafter Tecca) inherited the property at issue in this case. In 2003, Tecca borrowed $115,500 against the property. The loan was serviced by Option One Mortgage Corporation (Option One), and Premier Mortgage Services of Washington (Premier) acted as the trustee. In 2006, Tecca defaulted on the loan and received a notice of trustee's sale. In July 2006, Tecca negotiated and entered into a forbearance agreement to cure the default. The trustee's sale originally set for September 8, 2006 was continued six times. Each continuance was tied to the payments Tecca made under the Forbearance Agreement. The foreclosure sale finally took place on February 16, 2007. Through an agent, Petitioner Ron Dickinson, successfully bid on the property. Tecca first learned the property was sold when Dickinson told Tecca they no longer owned it and needed to leave. Dickinson then filed an unlawful detainer action and sought to quiet title. Tecca countersued, seeking to quiet title in an action to set aside the nonjudicial sale. Tecca also brought suit against Option One and Premier, but the trial court dismissed the action based on an arbitration clause. Dickinson moved for summary judgment to establish that he was a BFP and entitled to quiet title. Tecca also moved for summary judgment, arguing the foreclosure sale should have been set aside because the sale occurred after the statutory deadline and Premier was not a qualified trustee with authority to conduct the sale. The trial court granted Dickinson's motion, ruling that Dickinson was a BFP and despite procedural noncompliance by the trustee. Following trial, the court concluded Premier was authorized to act as the trustee, quieted title in Dickinson, and awarded Dickinson damages. Tecca appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed, setting the sale aside. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals: the nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings were "marred" by repeated statutory noncompliance. The financial institution acting as the lender also appeared to be acting as the trustee under a different name; the lender repeatedly accepted late payments and, at its sole discretion, rejected only the final late payment that would have cured the default; and the trustee conducted a sale without statutory authority. The Court concluded the sale was invalid.

Respondents the Commissioner of the New Hampshire Banking Department and the New Hampshire Banking Department (collectively, the Department), appealed an order of the Superior Court that permanently enjoined the Department from pursuing an administrative proceeding against Petitioner Jeffrey Frost on the ground that the Department lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Petitioners Frost, Chretien/Tillinghast, LLC, and Frost Family, LLC, cross-appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by denying their request for attorney’s fees. Frost is a member and designated manager of Chretien/Tillinghast, LLC (Chretien), and a member of Frost Family, LLC (Frost Family). Chretien and Frost Family (collectively, the LLCs) are New Hampshire limited liability companies organized for the purpose of real estate acquisition, holding, and development. The underlying dispute arose as the result of two seller-financed real estate transactions, one conducted by Frost Family and the other by Chretien. After both instances of seller-financing, Petitioner submitted a loan originator license application to the Department. At the time the administrative proceedings were initiated, the Department notified Petitioner that he could request a hearing with the Department. Petitioner did not file such a request. Instead, all Petitioners initiated a declaratory judgment proceeding in superior court, which included a request for a temporary restraining order. The petitioners contended that Respondents lacked subject matter jurisdiction to proceed against Frost and violated the State Constitution's prohibition against retrospective laws by seeking to impose a $25,000 fine for each alleged violation. After a hearing, the trial court granted the preliminary injunction, concluding that "[w]hile the [Department] may have jurisdiction over Frost because he is now a loan originator, it [could] take no action against him based on the September 2008 or the March 2009 transactions." Further, the trial court concluded that since the Department "may not impose any penalties on Frost," it did not need to consider the issue of the retrospective nature of the sanctions. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed that the Department lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the matter and affirmed the superior court's judgment.