Latest 2 Cases: Stepp v. U.S. Bank Trust N.A. (Banking), United States v. Akande (Criminal Law)

Even During a Pandemic, Fear-Mongering About the Debt Has Predictably Reared Its Ignorant Head

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why we should not be concerned about increasing the federal government’s debt, despite what some journalists are suggesting. Buchanan points out that sometimes—such as during a pandemic or other crisis—the federal government should borrow more to prevent a downward economic spiral.

Read More

Stepp v. U.S. Bank Trust N.A.

Docket: 19-1067

Opinion Date: April 20, 2020

Judge: Pamela Harris

Areas of Law: Banking, Real Estate & Property Law

A bank office that conducts no mortgage-related business does not qualify as a "branch office" of a "mortgagee" under 24 C.F.R. 203.604(c)(2). Section 203.604(c)(2) excuses a face-to-face meeting between the bank and the mortgage borrower before a foreclosure when the "mortgaged property is not within 200 miles of the mortgagee, its servicer, or a branch office of either." The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of U.S. Bank's motions to dismiss. The court agreed with the district court that U.S. Bank's Richmond office – the only one within 200 miles of plaintiff's home – conducted no mortgage-related business and was not open to the public, and thus did not qualify as a "branch office" of a "mortgagee."

United States v. Akande

Docket: 18-6833

Opinion Date: April 20, 2020

Judge: Diana Jane Gribbon Motz

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

After defendant moved under 28 U.S.C. 2255 to vacate his conviction based on the ineffective assistance of counsel, the district court denied the motion. The Fourth Circuit granted a certificate of appealability and reversed the district court's judgment. The court held that, given counsel's specific misadvice regarding defendant's rights to preserve his appellate rights, on which defendant understandably relied, the district court's general admonishments did not amount to the careful explanation that addresses the particular issue necessary to cure the error. In this case, the plea colloquy did not correct counsel's erroneous advice and the error prejudiced defendant. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings.