Essay Sample: Bank of America Versus Sundquist

The gist of Bank of America v Sundquist is a dispute about contested mortgage financing and a subsequent decision of the financier to sell the property. In this specific case law, Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) which is the plaintiff, initiated a lawsuit against Loraine Sundquist to Utah Supreme Court. Loraine Sundquist bought a home in Utah. During that time she was buying, she included a deed of trust to its beneficiary, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS). An attorney General was at first named the trustee according to the deed of trust although ReconTrust Company later was entitled as the trustee.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

After sometimes, Sundquist was not able to keep up with her role of completing the payment. For this reason, ReconTrust decided to sell Sundquist's home, and the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) then acquired beneficial interests. Sundquist's home was placed on auction sale by ReconTrust. FNMA was able to win the auction sale and ReconTrust entitled it as the owner of Sundquist's property. Bank of America later earned the Federal National Mortgage Association's interest in Sundquist's home.

This process was placed on different grounds when Sundquist was obstinate about leaving her home. As such, the Federal National Mortgage Association proceeded to the court seeking court's order to force Sundquist out of the property. Further, FNMA inquired for compensation purported to be propelled by Sundquist's decision to remain in her home after the sale of her home.

The course of action presented to the court by Federal National Mortgage Association prompted Sundquist to appeal for interlocutory review which was permitted by the court under Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v.Sundquist (Sundquist I), 2013 UT 45, 311 P.3d 1004. For this reason, Sundquist claimed that the sale of her property was void. She also argued that the trust deed does not hold the bank as the trustee according to Utah statutory. On the other hand, the Federal National Mortgage Association claimed that Texas law allowed ReconTrust to gain the title of a trustee under the National Bank Act (Utah, 2018). The Comptroller of currency under the National Bank Act asserts that the Comptroller holding the currency shall be permitted to allow national banks to implement entitlement for the national banks to be trustees of the deed of trust.

Consequently, the case revolved around the question of whether Utah statutory law should be implemented. According to Utah law, only particular people or firms are entitled to be trustees of the deed of trust, for instance, titled insurance firms, any agency of the United States government and dynamic attorneys. However, ReconTrust Company asserted that Texas law would affirm the entitlement of ReconTrust to be the trustee and would administer Sundquist's property for sale.

The ultimate question in this situation was whether corporations were allowed the role of trustees of the trust deed. The answer is addressed under the law in which ReconTrust was based, and that is in Texas which stated that ReconTrust Company was fit to act as a trustee on a deed of trust. The Supreme Court, however, stated that how the National Bank Act, Congress's used the word "located" was ambiguous. For this reason, Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v National Resource Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), needed that the Court remit to the "not unreasonable" illumination the Comptroller of the Currency offered.

The judges of the Supreme Court asserted that the statutory expression used was unambiguous. Further, the judges noted that a federal bank such as the National Bank that operates in the lines of getting to foreclose on the actual property in Utah should adhere to the stated laws of Utah (Utah, 2018). On appeal, the Supreme Court invalidated its prior statement claiming that the Comptroller's explanation of the pertinent statute needed consideration.

According to Utah (2018), the statute's ordinary language could not be understood because it would be placed in two different principles of statutory grounds in Utah law. The first principle states that Congress is transparent and blunt when offering commands to agencies to implement fundamental verdicts. The second principle stipulates that Congress does not intrude into common regions of laws governing a state only if Congress does so clearly.

The attorneys propounded that the two principles imply that Congress did not propose to control which law would be implemented to a deflecting behavior. The attorneys of the Supreme Court, therefore, noted that actual property is an issue of extremely local concern (Utah, 2018). This is due to the clear statement that manifests the permit of statutes of other foreign regions to manage the way an approach in which foreclosure sale can be administered in another area as of how Utah law implemented this issue.

In conclusion, the term "located" addressed in the National Bank Act cannot be manifested from the law's normal language. This is a s a result of the existence of a federal statute conducted by an agency's conversion of the ambiguous language. Chevron needs the court to divert from the "not unreasonable" illumination that the agency has offered. This is because the Comptroller's explanation of where a bank is "located" can be put into consideration. This calls for the district court to implement section 92(a), as in noted by the Comptroller. As such, this will affirm the location of ReconTrust and enforce the statute of that administration.

Reference

Bank of America, NA v. Sundquist, 430 P.3d 623, 2018 U.T. 58 (Utah 2018).