Mortgage Whistleblower Stands Alone as U.S. Won’t Join Lawsuit
April 28, 2014 —
Jef Feeley and David McLaughlin – BloombergTwo years after Lynn Szymoniak helped the U.S. recover $95 million from Bank of America Corp. and other lenders for mortgage-fraud tied to the housing bubble, the whistle-blower said the government is ignoring a chance to collect more money for identical claims against other banks.
Szymoniak got $18 million when the U.S. Justice Department intervened in her foreclosure-fraud lawsuit. The government negotiated a settlement with five lenders including Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)
The other banks accused of the same behavior, including Deutsche Bank AG (DBK) and HSBC Holdings Plc (HSBA), are still fighting Szymoniak’s suit, saying she isn’t a true whistle-blower. And the U.S., while continuing its crackdown on banks that packaged risky loans for sale as securities, hasn’t joined with her this time, leaving her to fight the banks alone. U.S. District Judge Joseph Anderson in Columbia, South Carolina, today is set to consider their bid to throw the case out.
Mr. Feeley may be contacted at jfeeley@bloomberg.net; Mr. McLaughlin may be contacted at dmclaughlin9@bloomberg.net
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jef Feeley and David McLaughlin, Bloomberg
Bert L. Howe & Associates to Join All-Star Panel at West Coast Casualty Seminar
March 26, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFDon MacGregor of Bert L. Howe & Associates, a consulting firm, will join fellow panelists Hon. Peter Lichtman (ret), Hon. Nancy Wieben Stock (ret), Peter S. Curry, Brian Kahn, Esq., and Paul R. Kiesel, Esq in a break-out discussion entitled “Working Smarter with Technology” at this year’s West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar being held May 15th-16th at the world-famous Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim, California.
West Coast Casualty's Construction Defect Seminar is the largest seminar of its kind worldwide focusing on all of the elements of the prosecution, defense, coverage and technologies of construction defect claims and litigation from a national perspective.
With offices in California, Nevada, Colorado, Florida and Texas (Houston & San Antonio), Bert L. Howe & Associates provides construction consulting and expert witness services to insurance professionals and lawyers specializing in construction defect litigation, construction risk analysis, and property claims arising from construction-related activities.
Download an Invitation and Register... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Communicate with the Field to Nip Issues in the Bud
March 16, 2017 —
Christopher G. Hill – Construction Law MusingsThis past week, I spent some time meeting with clients and generally discussing the day to day operations of construction companies. One common theme of these discussions (and of this construction blog) was the need to deal with problems at a job site early. I have often discussed the contract side of catching things early, and firmly believe that this is the first step to a successful construction project. This post is about the equally important “operational” side of this advice.
What do I mean by “operational?” Essentially, while the contract negotiation and drafting tries to anticipate problems that might occur, the operational side deals with problems on a job site as they occur. In short, moving from what might occur (something I as a construction lawyer think about all the time), to what is actually occurring when putting that contract to work. Whether you are a general contractor, owner, subcontractor, or supplier to a construction project, you are likely well aware of the fact that Murphy was an optimist and something will go wrong. How you deal with this fact can be the difference between a successful, profitable project, and one that ends up in litigation (read: not as profitable). However, in order to deal with a problem properly, you need to know about the problem before it explodes. Without this knowledge, a problem could fester and lead to non-payment, subcontractor mechanic’s liens, and other headaches that don’t need to be further mentioned here.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher G. Hill, The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Hill may be contacted at
chrisghill@constructionlawva.com
Not so Fast! How Does Revoking Acceleration of a Note Impact the Statute of Limitations?
July 30, 2018 —
Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIntroduction
Lenders routinely accelerate notes after a default occurs, calling the entire loan due immediately. Less regularly, a lender may change its mind and unilaterally revoke the acceleration. Rarely, however, does a lender fail to foreclose on its real property collateral before the statute of limitations expires. In Andra R. Miller Designs, LLC v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 244 Ariz. 265, 418 P.3d 1038 (Ct. App. 2018), a unique set of facts involving these issues led the Arizona Court of Appeals to hold that proper revocation of acceleration resets the statute of limitations.
The Facts
In Miller, a lender made a $1,940,000 loan evidenced by a promissory note and secured by a deed of trust against a home in Paradise Valley, Arizona. The borrower defaulted in September 2008. The default prompted the lender to notice a default, accelerate the note, and initiate a trustee’s sale of the home in 2009. After the lender accelerated the note, the six year statute of limitations began to run. See A.R.S. § 12-548(A)(1) and A.R.S. § 33-816. Pretty standard facts so far, right? Don’t worry, it gets a bit more convoluted.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ben Reeves, Snell & WilmerMr. Reeves may be contacted at
breeves@swlaw.com
Purely “Compensatory” Debts Owed by Attorneys to Clients (Which Are Not Disciplinary or Punitive Fees Imposed by the State Bar) Are Dischargeable In Bankruptcy
April 28, 2016 —
Renata L. Hoddinott & David W. Evans – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPThe United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Scheer v. The State Bar of California (4/14/16 – Case no. 2:14-cv-04829-JFW) reversed the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s decision that a suspended attorney’s debt was nondischargeable in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7).
In Scheer, the client (Clark) retained attorney Scheer to help modify his home mortgage loan. Clark paid Scheer $5,500 before any modification occurred. Clark then fired Scheer and sought return of the $5,500 under California’s mandatory attorney fee dispute arbitration program. An arbitrator concluded that, although Scheer performed competently, she violated California Civil Code §2944.7(a) by receiving advance fees for residential mortgage modification services. Although the arbitrator believed that Scheer’s violations were neither willful nor malicious, he concluded California law required a full refund of the improperly collected fees. Scheer made a few payments against the arbitration award but, claiming a lack of funds, failed to pay the outstanding balance.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Renata L. Hoddinott, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Hoddinott may be contacted at rhoddinott@hbblaw.com
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
“Bound by the Bond”
September 02, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyA New York trial court granted judgment in favor of a performance bond surety on a construction project, based upon the failure of the claiming party to abide by the terms of the bond.
The “AIA Document A312” bond form – described by the court (quoting surety law authority) to be “one of the clearest, most definitive, and widely used type of traditional common law ‘performance bonds’ in private construction” – contains various procedures which must be honored as a “condition precedent to an action to recover” on the bond/against the surety. One of those prerequisites is a “declaration of default” concerning the contractor principal (here, a subcontractor).
The case involved the construction of an 85-story skyscraper in midtown Manhattan, and the performance of the subcontract for the building’s superstructure. The bonded contract was at a value of approximately $25,000,000 and obligated the sub to provide a performance bond “in a form similar to the [A312 bond],” and which was otherwise satisfactory to the obligee/construction manager.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Construction Problems May Delay Bay Bridge
May 10, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFFaulty bolts could lead to a delay in the opening of the Bay Bridge. Caltrans noticed problems with bolts and found that the bolts had cracked. Of the 98 bolts already tightened, 30 have failed. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, workers will be tightening all 288 bolts and then testing them. According to Tony Anziano, Caltrans’s toll bridge program manager, repairs could take one or two months. Mr. Anziano noted that the manufacturer might be responsible for part of the expense, but that the budget for the bridge also has funds set aside for unanticipated repairs.
The bolts were supplied by Dyson, an Ohio company, but it was clear whether Dyson manufactured the bolts or simply marketed them.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Pennsylvania Federal Court Finds No Coverage For Hacking Claim Under E&O Policy
July 25, 2022 —
Celestine Montague & Paul A. Briganti - White and Williams LLPOn June 9, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held, on summary judgment, that an insured was not entitled to coverage under a Professional Errors and Omissions (E&O) policy for loss allegedly resulting from a hacking incident. See Construction Fin. Admin. Servs., Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., No. 19-0020, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103042 (E.D. Pa. June 9, 2022). Applying North Carolina and Pennsylvania law, the court reasoned that: (1) coverage was barred by the policy’s unauthorized computer access, or “breach,” exclusions; and (2) the insured violated a condition in the policy that required the insurer’s consent to settlements and the violation prejudiced the insurer.
The insured, Construction Financial Administration Services, Inc. (CFAS), was a third-party fund administrator for construction contractors. In April 2018, the CFAS received email requests from what it believed to be one of its clients, SWF Constructors (SWF), to disburse $1.3 million from an SWF account to a foreign company. CFAS authorized the payments, despite not having received a copy of any executed agreement between SWF and the foreign company. After the funds were disbursed, SWF advised that it had not authorized or requested the payments to the foreign company. In response, CFAS placed approximately $1.2 million of recovered and borrowed funds into the SWF disbursement account. SWF then sent a letter advising CFAS that the requests from the foreign company did not include documentation required under the contract between SWF and CFAS. It was later determined that the emails had been initiated by a fraudster who had gained unauthorized access to the sender’s email account.
Reprinted courtesy of
Celestine Montague, White and Williams LLP and
Paul A. Briganti, White and Williams LLP
Ms. Montague may be contacted at montaguec@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Briganti may be contacted at brigantip@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
