MReport June 2017

TheMReport — News and strategies for the evolving mortgage marketplace.

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 55 of 67

54 | TH E M R EP O RT O R I G I NAT I O N S E R V I C I N G DATA G O V E R N M E N T S E C O N DA R Y M A R K E T THE LATEST GOVERNMENT Supreme Court Rules Cities Can Sue Banks Over Foreclosure-related Losses If it is proven that a bank's actions led to foreclosures, cities can sue a bank over lost tax revenues and increased costs of maintaining foreclosed properties. I n a 5-3 decision on May 1, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that cities can sue banks over lost tax revenue on foreclosed properties due to urban blight. Law360 reported that Miami has the standing to sue Bank of America Corp. and Wells Fargo & Co. under the Fair Hous - ing Act, stating that the banks' dis- criminatory and predatory lending practices led to a major shortfall in city tax revenues. The final ruling is not up to the high court, however, as the Supreme Court sent the case back to the Eleventh District, in order to determine whether the banks' lending practices were "proximate cause" for the damages. Law360 reported that all eight justices re - jected the probable cause argument. "The ruling is clearly a concern for lenders who believed cities did not have sufficient standing in order to assert claims that are more appropriate to be brought by the ultimate aggrieved parties, which should be the borrowers, assuming of course the allegations are true," said Shaun K. Ramey, Shareholder of Sirote and Permutt, P.C. "That being said, although the court granted cities the right to file suit, they set a high bar for proving proximate causation so the impact of the Supreme Court's decision may not be as broad as it appears at first blush." The court found that the city's claims fell within the "zone of interests" established by the Fair Housing Act (FHA), which means Bank of America and Wells Fargo's practices led to decreases in tax revenue and increased costs for maintaining foreclosed properties. "The city will be required to show that the claimed damages were 'proximately caused' by the violation of the FHA," said Roy A. Diaz, Managing Shareholder of SHD Legal Group. "The court recognizes that Congress did not intend the FHA to provide a rem - edy for 'ripples of harm' that may flow from a violation of the FHA. The majority establishes that the FHA requires some direct relation between the injury asserted and the conduct alleged." Justice Clarence Thomas dis - sented, saying the FHA does not allow for expanded claims. "Nothing in the text of the FHA suggests that Congress was concerned about decreased property values, foreclosures, and urban blight, much less about strains on municipal budgets that might follow," Justice Thomas said. The banks will not be held liable until the Eleventh Circuit can determine whether the bank's actions caused the foreclosures. "The Eleventh Circuit ground - ed its decision on the theory that proximate cause under the FHA is 'based on foreseeability' alone. We therefore lack the benefit of its judgment on how the contrary principles we have just stated apply to the FHA. Nor has any other court of appeals weighed in on the issue," the majority opinion said.

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of TheMReport - MReport June 2017