Banking Litigation Cases
In Drummer Boy Homes Association, Inc. v. Carolyn P. Britton, a case that essentially pitted the interests of condominium associations against those of mortgage lenders, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that the Commonwealth’s governing statute permits a condominium association to obtain only one “super-priority” lien against the unit of a delinquent owner for up to six months’ worth of unpaid condominium fees and attorney’s fees. Such a lien takes precedence over any earlier lien held by a purchase money mortgage lender. In so ruling, the Appeals Court (i) rejected the association’s claim that it could obtain multiple, successive such liens and (ii) accepted the position advocated in an amicus curiae brief filed by Fitch Law Partners LLP‘s Stephen Reilly on behalf of the Firm’s client, a large national bank.
In a complex case involving multiple properties and allegations of both predatory lending and wrongful foreclosure, Steve Reilly and Ryan Cunningham won the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of the plaintiffs’ 8-count complaint against Fitch Law Partners LLP‘s client, a large national bank.
In a case handled by Steve Reilly involving challenges to a residential foreclosure, the United States District Court dismissed all claims against FITCH’s bank client. Among the rulings found in the District Court’s decision was a determination that a pre-foreclosure “right to cure” notice complied with the relevant language found in the text of the mortgage granted by the plaintiff.
In a case handled by Steve Reilly that involved complex allegations of predatory lending and wrongful foreclosure, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed an earlier judgment of the U.S. District Court dismissing the claims against FITCH’s client, a large national banking association. The First Circuit’s decision, which turned on application of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”), established binding precedent for federal courts located in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico.
In a federal court case involving allegations of wrongful foreclosure, Steve Reilly won a dismissal of all the plaintiff’s claims against FITCH’s client, a large national banking association.
In a complex federal court case involving allegations of predatory lending and wrongful foreclosure, Steve Reilly won summary judgment in favor of FITCH’s client, a large national banking association. All of the plaintiffs’ claims against our client were dismissed with prejudice.
Stephen Reilly won summary judgment in favor of Fitch Law Partners LLP client Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”) in a case involving claims of mortgage fraud. The plaintiff alleged that her now ex-husband had forged her signature on mortgage loan documents and that BOA personnel had improperly notarized those documents. Although there was considerable documentary and testimonial evidence undercutting the claim of forgery, the case was ultimately decided on statute of limitations grounds. The Massachusetts Superior Court ruled that the case was time-barred because documents obtained during the discovery process proved that the plaintiff was aware of her potential claims more than four years before she filed the suit.
Steve Reilly won summary judgment in favor of our client, Bank of America, N.A., in a “check fraud” case brought by a former account holder. Agreeing with all of the arguments advanced in FITCH’s motion papers, the Court ruled that the plaintiff’s claims were not only time-barred under the applicable account agreement but also substantively deficient under the Uniform Commercial Code, common law, and M.G.L. c. 93A. This was the fourth time in 2010 in which Steve have won a case for BOA via dispositive motion.
Steve Reilly won a judgment in Suffolk Superior Court in favor of our client Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”) dismissing the plaintiff’s lawsuit against BOA in its entirety. The plaintiff had sought money damages and other relief, claiming that documents and information supplied by BOA in response to certain subpoenas had caused a Court in the Czech Republic to enter a judgment against this plaintiff and in favor of a third party.
Steve Reilly won summary judgment in favor of our client Bank of America, N.A. in two separate suits against the bank. In the first case, a bank customer alleged that a series of unauthorized withdrawals had been made from her account. In the second case, which was unrelated to the first, the plaintiff alleged that the bank had improperly accepted certain funds for deposit. In each instance, a Superior Court judge determined that the bank was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.
Stephen Reilly won a major case on behalf of our client Bank of America (“BOA”). On July 23, 2009, the Massachusetts Appeals Court issued a decision in Grassi Design Group, Inc., et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., 74 Mass. App. Ct. 456 (2009), affirming the Superior Court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of BOA in a complex check fraud action. Steve represented BOA in both the Superior Court and the Appeals Court. The recent Grassi decision is significant because it marks the first instance in which an appellate court in Massachusetts has ruled on the “same wrongdoer” rule set forth in Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) section 4-406(d)(2) — a key defense to many check fraud claims. The Appeals Court also made it clear that, in a check fraud case such as this, the customer bears the burden of proving that the defendant bank did not exercise “ordinary care” as that term is specifically defined in UCC section 3-103(a)(7). Read the decision.
In a Superior Court check fraud case, Steve Reilly obtained summary judgment dismissing all claims against FITCH, LLP’s client, a large national bank.
In a Superior Court check fraud case, Steve Reilly and Amber Villa obtained summary judgment dismissing all claims against Fitch Law Partners LLP‘s client, a large national bank.