Bank-Fund Staff Federal Credit Union v. Cuellar

639 A.2d 561 (1994)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Bank-Fund Staff Federal Credit Union v. Cuellar

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
639 A.2d 561 (1994)

Facts

Guillermo Vivado and his wife (defendants) mortgaged their house to secure a loan from Bank-Fund Staff Federal Credit Union (the mortgagee) (plaintiff). When the Vivados defaulted on the loan, the mortgagee notified them that their house would be auctioned at a June 1990 foreclosure sale. The notice complied with the District of Columbia’s residential-foreclosure statute by identifying the minimum balance the Vivados needed to pay in order to cure the default and reinstate the loan (the cure amount). The Vivados declared bankruptcy, forcing postponement of the June foreclosure sale. The mortgagee sent the Vivados a second notice naming a September date for the foreclosure sale. On the wrongful assumption that the house was no longer the Vivados’ family residence, this second notice declared that the residential-foreclosure statute was inapplicable, and therefore the notice did not restate the cure amount. The mortgagee successfully bid on the house at the foreclosure sale and sued the Vivados for possession. The trial court agreed with the Vivados that the house remained their residence and granted them summary judgment because of the second notice’s omission of the cure amount. The mortgagee appealed to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. That court consolidated the appeal with other actions, including the mortgagee’s action against Milko Cuellar, which otherwise was unrelated to the Vivados’ case.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Rogers, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 734,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership