Justia U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The case involves Izzat and Tarik Freitekh, who were convicted of various offenses related to a fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan scheme. They received $1.75 million in PPP loan funds through false representations and fabricated documents. Izzat owned several businesses, and with Tarik's help, they submitted fraudulent loan applications. The funds were deposited into accounts controlled by Izzat, and he distributed some of the money to family members under the guise of payroll.The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina initially reviewed the case. Both defendants were indicted for bank fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and other related charges. During the trial, the court admitted testimony from their former attorneys, who had received and submitted falsified documents to the government. The jury found Izzat guilty of conspiracy to commit money laundering, money laundering, and making false statements, while Tarik was found guilty of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, bank fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, money laundering, and falsifying material facts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's decisions, holding that sufficient evidence supported the convictions. The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including emails and checks, was enough to prove Izzat's involvement in the money laundering conspiracy. The court also upheld the district court's reliance on acquitted conduct to calculate the sentencing enhancements, noting that the evidence presented at trial proved Izzat's participation in the fraudulent scheme by a preponderance of the evidence. The court also found no error in the district court's application of the "intended loss" definition in the sentencing guidelines. Tarik's arguments regarding the calculation of the loss amount and the application of the sophisticated means enhancement were also rejected. The court concluded that the district court had properly considered the relevant sentencing factors and affirmed the sentences imposed. View "United States v. Freitekh" on Justia Law

A former employee of Credit Suisse, John Doe, filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act (FCA) alleging that the bank failed to disclose ongoing criminal conduct to the United States, thereby avoiding additional penalties. This followed Credit Suisse's 2014 guilty plea to conspiracy charges for aiding U.S. taxpayers in filing false tax returns, which included a $1.3 billion fine. Doe claimed that Credit Suisse continued its illegal activities post-plea, thus defrauding the government.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted the government's motion to dismiss the case. The government argued that Doe's allegations did not state a valid claim under the FCA and that continuing the litigation would strain resources and interfere with ongoing obligations under the plea agreement. The district court dismissed the action without holding an in-person hearing, relying instead on written submissions from both parties.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the "hearing" requirement under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A) of the FCA can be satisfied through written submissions and does not necessitate a formal, in-person hearing. The court found that Doe did not present a colorable claim that his constitutional rights were violated by the dismissal. The court emphasized that the government has broad discretion to dismiss qui tam actions and that the district court properly considered the government's valid reasons for dismissal, including resource conservation and the protection of privileged information. The Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court's dismissal was appropriate and affirmed the judgment. View "United States ex rel. Doe v. Credit Suisse AG" on Justia Law

William Lyons opened a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) account with National City Bank in 2005, which was later acquired by PNC Bank. PNC withdrew funds from Lyons' deposit accounts to offset outstanding HELOC payments without prior notification. Lyons contested these withdrawals, claiming they were unauthorized. PNC responded, asserting their right to make the withdrawals. Lyons then sued for economic and statutory damages, as well as emotional distress.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. PNC moved to compel arbitration on the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) claim, which the district court partially granted. Both parties appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the Dodd-Frank Act prohibits arbitration of claims related to residential mortgage loans. The case was remanded to the district court, which ruled in favor of PNC on both the TILA and Real Estate Settlement Practices Act (RESPA) claims. The district court held that TILA’s offset provision does not apply to HELOCs and that the CFPB had the authority to exempt HELOCs from RESPA’s requirements.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that TILA’s offset provision does apply to HELOCs, reversing the district court’s decision on the TILA claim. The court found that the term "credit card plan" includes HELOCs when accessed via a credit card. However, the court affirmed the district court’s decision on the RESPA claim, agreeing that the CFPB has the authority to exempt HELOCs from RESPA’s definition of “federally related mortgage loans.” The case was reversed and remanded in part and affirmed in part. View "Lyons v. PNC Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Leslie Atkinson purchased a 2003 Chevrolet Avalanche through a retail installment sales contract, which granted the seller a security interest in the vehicle. The seller assigned the sales contract and the security interest to Credit Acceptance Corporation. When Atkinson defaulted on her payments, Credit Acceptance hired Carolina Repo to repossess the vehicle. During the repossession, Atkinson attempted to drive off in the vehicle, leading to a confrontation with the Carolina Repo representative. The representative called the Harnett County Sheriff’s Office for assistance, and Deputy Brent Godfrey arrived on the scene. Godfrey ordered Atkinson out of the vehicle so that the Carolina Repo representative could repossess it.Atkinson sued Godfrey and Sheriff Wayne Coats under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. She claimed that Godfrey, in his individual capacity, violated her Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures of property by facilitating Carolina Repo’s repossession. She also alleged that Coats, in his official capacity as the sheriff, failed to train officers and created policies that deprived her of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures of property.The defendants moved to dismiss Atkinson’s § 1983 claim, asserting that Atkinson did not allege facts showing they acted under color of law, that Godfrey was entitled to qualified immunity, and that, without an underlying constitutional violation, Atkinson failed to bring an actionable claim against the Sheriff’s Office through Coats in his official capacity. The district court denied the motion, finding it could not determine as a matter of law that Godfrey’s actions did not constitute state action, that Godfrey was entitled to qualified immunity, and that the Sheriff’s Office’s liability could be ruled out. Godfrey and Coats appealed the district court’s denial of their motion.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of Godfrey’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity. The court found that neither the Supreme Court, the Fourth Circuit, the highest court of North Carolina, nor a consensus of other circuit courts of appeals had determined that conduct similar to that of Godfrey was unconstitutional. Therefore, the right alleged to be violated was not clearly established. The court remanded the case with instructions to grant Godfrey’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the appeal with respect to the claim against Coats, as the issues it presented were not inextricably intertwined with the resolution of the qualified immunity issues. View "Atkinson v. Godfrey" on Justia Law

The case originated from a lending relationship between Jeffrey Frye and his companies, The Wall Guy, Inc., and JR Contractors, and First State Bank. After the relationship soured, both parties sued each other, leading to nearly a decade of litigation involving two state-court lawsuits, a jury trial, post-trial motions, removal to federal district court, and motions practice in that court. However, the appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit were dismissed due to a lack of jurisdiction.The court determined that the plaintiffs had not properly invoked the court's appellate jurisdiction. The plaintiffs had filed a notice of appeal before the district court had announced a decision on a future or pending motion, which under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(B)(ii), was insufficient to give the appellate court jurisdiction over a later order related to that motion.The court also determined that the plaintiffs had not established a timely notice of appeal regarding other orders. The court emphasized that while the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should be liberally construed, they cannot be ignored, especially when they implicate the court's appellate jurisdiction. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not met their burden to establish appellate jurisdiction and dismissed the appeals. View "The Wall Guy, Inc. v. FDIC" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Yagoub Mohamed, a self-employed mechanic, sued Bank of America, alleging that the bank's conduct and error-claim procedures violated the federal Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) and various state laws. Mohamed had applied for unemployment benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic and was found eligible to receive $14,644, which he elected to receive via a Bank of America-issued debit card. However, by the time he received and activated his card, the entire benefit amount had been spent on transactions he did not recognize. The bank opened an error claim and later froze his account due to possible fraud.The district court granted Bank of America's motion to dismiss Mohamed's federal claim, stating that the unemployment benefits he was to receive via a prepaid debit card were not protected by the EFTA. The court did not exercise jurisdiction over the state-law claims.On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that the account in which Mohamed's benefits were held qualified as a "government benefit account" under the EFTA and its implementing regulations. As such, the court concluded that Mohamed had stated a claim under the Act. The court rejected the bank's arguments that it had established the account in question, asserting that the account was established by the state of Maryland, and the bank acted solely under its contract with the state.The court's holding is significant because it clarifies the scope of protection offered by the EFTA for government benefits distributed via prepaid debit cards, and it underlines the responsibilities of banks in managing such accounts. View "Mohamed v. Bank of America, N.A." on Justia Law

In 2005, Lyons opened a Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOC) with PNC’s predecessor, signing an agreement with no arbitration provision. In 2010, Lyons opened deposit accounts at PNC and signed a document that stated he was bound by the terms of PNC’s Account Agreement, including a provision authorizing PNC to set off funds from the account to pay any indebtedness owed by the account holder to PNC. PNC could amend the Account Agreement. In 2013, PNC added an arbitration clause to the Account Agreement. Customers had 45 days to opt out. Lyons opened another deposit account with PNC in 2014 and agreed to be bound by the 2014 Account Agreement, including the arbitration clause. Lyons again did not opt out. Lyons’s HELOC ended in February 2015. PNC began applying setoffs from Lyons’s 2010 and 2014 Accounts.Lyons sued under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). PNC moved to compel arbitration. The court found that the Dodd-Frank Act amendments to TILA barred arbitration of Lyons’s claims related to the 2014 Account but did not apply retroactively to bar arbitration of his claims related to the 2010 account. The Fourth Circuit reversed in part. The Dodd-Frank Act 15 U.S.C. 1639c(e) precludes pre-dispute agreements requiring the arbitration of claims related to residential mortgage loans; the relevant arbitration agreement was not formed until after the amendment's effective date. PNC may not compel arbitration of Lyons’s claims as to either account. View "Lyons v. PNC Bank" on Justia Law

The district court dismissed a class action, alleging that Carrington violated the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA) and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) by charging $5 convenience fees to borrowers who paid monthly mortgage bills online or by phone. The district court held that in charging the convenience fees, Carrington was not a “collector” for either MCDCA claim, that Carrington was not a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. 1692f(1)), that plaintiffs’ choice to use the online payment option was “permitted by law,” that Carrington’s convenience fees were not “incidental” to plaintiffs’ mortgage debt, and that Carrington had the “right” to collect the convenience fees since none of the mortgage documents expressly prohibited the fees and plaintiffs voluntarily chose to make payments online.The Fourth Circuit reversed in part. Carrington need not be a debt collector under federal standards for plaintiffs’ state claim to proceed. Carrington violated the MCDCA by engaging in conduct violating the FDCPA, so the derivative MCPA claim can also proceed. The FDCPA prohibits “[t]he collection of any amount . . . unless such amount is expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law.” View "Alexander v. Carrington Mortgage Services" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that pressure tactics used by Quicken Loans and TSI to influence home appraisers to raise appraisal values to obtain higher loan values on their homes constituted a breach of contract and unconscionable inducement under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs.The Fourth Circuit concluded that class certification is appropriate and that plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on their claims for conspiracy and unconscionable inducement. However, the court concluded that the district court erred in its analysis of the breach-of-contract claim. The court explained that the district court will need to address defendants' contention that there were no damages suffered by those class members whose appraisals would have been the same whether or not the appraisers were aware of the borrowers' estimates of value—which one might expect, for example, if a borrower's estimate of value was accurate. The court agreed with plaintiffs that the covenant of good faith and fair dealing applies to the parties' contract, but concluded that it cannot by itself sustain the district court's decision at this stage. The district court may consider the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to the extent that it is relevant for evaluating Quicken Loans' performance of the contracts. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part. View "Alig v. Quicken Loans Inc." on Justia Law

After his taxes were paid late from his mortgage escrow account, causing him to incur $895 in penalties, the homeowner-borrower filed a putative class action against the company that serviced his mortgage. Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2601, if a mortgage contract requires the borrower to place property tax payments in escrow, “the servicer” must make those tax payments on time. The right to service a mortgage is subject to purchase and sale. The rights to service the plaintiff’s mortgage had been transferred between the time of the plaintiff’s payment into the escrow account and the tax’s due date.Reversing the district court, the Fourth Circuit concluded that when servicing rights are transferred in the window between the borrower’s payment to escrow and the tax’s due date, RESPA requires taxes to be paid by the entity responsible for servicing the mortgage at the time the tax payment is due. By requiring “the servicer” to make tax payments “as [they] become due,” RESPA connects the servicer’s obligation to a payment’s due date, not the date of payment into escrow by the borrower. View "Harrell v. Freedom Mortgage Corp." on Justia Law