A Question of Ethics In January 2003, Gary Ryder and Washington Mutual Bank, F.A., executed a note in which Ryder promised to pay $2,450,000, plus interest at a rate that could vary from month to month. The amount of the fi rst payment was $10,933. The note was to be paid in full by February 1, 2033. A mortgage on Ryder’s real property at 345 Round Hill Road in Greenwich, Connecticut, in favor of the bank secured his obligations under the note. The note and mortgage required that he pay the taxes on the property, which he did not do in 2004 and 2005.

The bank notifi ed him that he was in default and, when he failed to act, paid $50,095.92 in taxes, penalties, interest, and fees. Other disputes arose between the parties, and Ryder fi led a suit in a federal district court against the bank, alleging, in part, breach of contract.

He charged, among other things, that some of his timely payments were not processed and were subjected to incorrect late fees, forcing him to make excessive payments and ultimately resulting in

“non-payment by Ryder.” [Ryder v. Washington Mutual Bank, F.A., 501 F.Supp.2d 311 (D.Conn. 2007)]

1 The bank fi led a counterclaim, seeking to foreclose on the mortgage. What should a creditor be required to prove to foreclose on mortgaged property? What would be a debtor’s most effective defense? Which party in this case is likely to prevail on the bank’s counterclaim? Why?

2 The parties agreed to a settlement that released the bank from Ryder’s claims and required him to pay the note by January 31, 2007. The court dismissed the suit, but when Ryder did not make the payment, the bank asked the court to reopen the case. The bank then asked for a judgment in its favor on Ryder’s complaint, arguing that the settlement had “immediately” released the bank from his claims. Does this seem fair? Why or why not?

Critical Thinking and Writing Assignments