If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser.

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries

US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
April 21, 2020

Table of Contents

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

Banking, Real Estate & Property Law

United States v. Akande

Criminal Law

COVID-19 Updates: Law & Legal Resources Related to Coronavirus

Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s).

New on Verdict

Legal Analysis and Commentary

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

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

verdict post

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

US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Opinions

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."

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

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.

Read Opinion

Are you a lawyer? Annotate this case.

About Justia Opinion Summaries

Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 68 different newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states.

Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 63 different practice areas.

All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com.

You may freely redistribute this email in whole.

About Justia

Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers.

Justia

Contact Us| Privacy Policy

Unsubscribe From This Newsletter

or
unsubscribe from all Justia newsletters immediately here.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Justia

Justia | 1380 Pear Ave #2B, Mountain View, CA 94043