Banks & Banking – Constitutional – TARP & EEPA – Real Property – Foreclosure

South Carolina Lawyers Weekly > Opinion Digest > Banks And Banking > Banks & Banking – Constitutional – TARP & EEPA – Real Property – Foreclosure

Banks & Banking – Constitutional – TARP & EEPA – Real Property – Foreclosure

By S.C. Lawyers Weekly staff
Published: June 4, 2012
Time posted: 9:14 am
Tags: Banks & Banking, Constitutional, Foreclosure, Real Property, TARP & EEPA

CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Kokolis The third-party plaintiff seeks actual and punitive damages against third-party defendants the U.S. Treasury Department and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, but nowhere in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) or the Administrative Procedure Act is there a provision permitting money damages for alleged injury caused by actions taken pursuant to the EESA.

Login required


You have clicked on a link to information that is exclusive to SC Lawyers Weekly subscribers.

	Email Address: Password:	Already a paid subscriber but not registered for online access yet? For instructions on how to get premium web access, click here. Forgot Password?

Interested in Subscribing?

Start by choosing how you'd like your news delivered.

- Print and Digital -

- Digital Only -

Try South Carolina Lawyers Weekly for a month
for only $32 AND get a free whitepaper:

Exit strategy: a solo and
small-firm lawyer's guide to
the how and when of retirement

Click here to subscribe now.

< Previous Article
Next Article >

POST A COMMENT

Comments are closed.

Recent Opinion Digests

Tort/Negligence – Contract – Exculpatory Clause – Unfair Trade Practices – Emotional Distress – Fire Alarm

Bahringer v. ADT Security Services, Inc. The parties’ relationship was one of home security company and customer, i.e., contractual. It does not fit within either of the categories in which the S.C. Supreme Court has found that a special relationship (one marked by a professional duty or supervisor-supervisee) imposes extra-contractual duties. Plaintiff has not explained why defendant’s duties to a wheelchair-bound double amputee may be any different than they would be to an able-bodied customer. Therefore, plaintiff’s negligence action fails.

Administrative – Immigrant’s ‘Grabbing’ Officer’s Hand Not ‘Violent’ Crime

Karimi v. Holder The 4th Circuit grants an Afghan citizen’s petition for review of a final order of removal, and says the government failed to prove that his act of “grabbing” the hand of a police officer who was processing his Maryland DUI charge was not a “crime of violence” and thus an “aggravated felony” that would trigger his removal under federal immigration law.

Administrative – Appeal Dismissed in Medicaid Cutback Case

K.C. v. Shipman In this case involving a cutback in Medicaid services to a class of North Carolina recipients with severe developmental disabilities, the 4th Circuit dismisses an appeal of a preliminary injunction ordering the state Medicaid agency not to reduce services without a hearing; the state agency that administers the Medicaid program has not joined in this appeal filed by the contract healthcare provider that manages the services and its director

Criminal Practice – No Restitution Payment with Tax Refund

U.S. v. Grant A district court abused its discretion in adding as a special condition to defendant’s sentencing order an obligation to turn over any tax refund as part of her restitution for illegal receipt of social security payments, and the 4th Circuit vacates the order setting the special condition.

Bankruptcy – Lien-Stripping Approved in Chapter 20 Cases

Branigan v. TD Bank NA In a “Chapter 20” bankruptcy case – a Chapter 13 bankruptcy filed within four years of a Chapter 7 discharge – there is no per se rule barring lien-stripping, and the 4th Circuit affirms an order stripping off liens secured by collateral with no value to support them in this suit involving debtors’ residences