Get 40% Off
These stocks are up over 10% post earnings. Did you spot the buying opportunity? Our AI did.Read how

U.S. Supreme Court rejects singer Rundgren's Chase suit appeal

Published 03/23/2015, 12:04 PM
Updated 03/23/2015, 12:11 PM
© Reuters. Rundgren performs with Ringo Starr and his All-Starr Band during a media event promoting the band's upcoming tour of South America, at a rehearsal hall in Hollywood

By Dena Aubin

(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to revive a lawsuit by singer-songwriter Todd Rundgren and his wife Michele accusing JPMorgan Chase (NYSE:JPM) of wrongfully attempting to foreclose on the couple's Kilauea, Hawaii home.

The court's rejection of the couple's appeal lets stand a lower court's dismissal of their claims for damages and an order to stop a foreclosure sale.

The Rundgrens' lawyer, Gary Dubin, said the couple are still in their home and have other defenses to fight the foreclosure.

"This is just the beginning," Dubin said by email.

JPMorgan spokesman Jason Lobo declined comment.

Rundgren, set to begin a U.S. tour in April, is best known for such 1970s hits as "Hello It's Me" and "I Saw the Light."

The Rundgrens' dispute stems from a $3 million refinancing loan the couple arranged with Washington Mutual Bank several months before the bank failed in 2008. Chase bought that bank's assets, including the Rundgrens' loan, out of receivership in 2008.

In court filings, Chase said it started foreclosure proceedings in 2009 after the Rundgrens defaulted on their $17,060 monthly mortgage payments.

The Rundgrens' lawsuit alleged that their mortgage was void because of numerous fraudulent acts by Washington Mutual Bank, also called WaMu, when the bank originated the loan. The lawsuit said WaMu created a false loan application, exaggerated the Rundgrens' income and used a false appraisal for their home.

The lawsuit said WaMu tricked the Rundgrens into signing the mortgage without giving the couple time to read it and understand its terms. The loan had been switched from a fixed-rate to an adjustable-rate loan, the lawsuit said.

3rd party Ad. Not an offer or recommendation by Investing.com. See disclosure here or remove ads .

In a motion to dismiss the case filed in 2010, Chase argued that it was not liable for WaMu's actions. The bank said that when it bought WaMu's loans from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, its purchase agreement provided that Chase would not assume related liabilities.

Hawaii's U.S. District Court and the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit agreed, saying claims involving WaMu loans have to be resolved in administrative proceedings at the FDIC.

The courts cited the 1989 Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act, which gave the FDIC broad authority to address claims against failed banks.

In seeking a Supreme Court review, Dubin had argued that it defied logic to leave the couple exposed to foreclosure while they pursued administrative claims.

The case is: Todd Rundgren et al, petitioners v Washington Mutual Bank et al, No 14-865

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.