Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kim v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Na

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 21, 2012No. Docket 144690Published

1DissentZahra, J.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that plaintiffs’ mortgage did not pass to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., by operation of law. Under federal law, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) has broad statutory powers for resolving the business of a failed bank. The FDIC’s transfer of plaintiffs’ mortgage to Chase was part of a larger, specialized transaction authorized under federal law that was undertaken by the FDIC to resolve the business of Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu), a failed bank. Pursuant to this federal authority, the FDIC was permitted to transfer the assets…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Skidmore v. Swift & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  2. United States v. Mead Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
  3. Louisiana Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. FCCSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Klooster v. City of CharlevoixMichigan Supreme Court · 2011
  5. Miller v. ClarkMichigan Supreme Court · 1885

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API