6th Cir.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget

June 15, 2026 ·25-1958 ·Unanimous ·Thapar · By Maria Santos

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a motion to vacate a judgment and its grant of a motion to renew a judgment against Larry J. Winget, holding that Alter Domus had standing to enforce the debt despite not being the original lender.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 0:46

Background

Larry J. Winget and his companies defaulted on a loan, leading to a decades-long litigation involving a $750 million judgment. JPMorgan Chase Bank, originally the agent, resigned and appointed Alter Domus as the successor agent. Winget challenged Alter Domus’s standing to enforce the judgment and contested a judicial sale of his trust assets.

The court’s reasoning

The court held that Alter Domus suffered an injury in fact because Winget breached the guaranty agreement with the agent. The Supreme Court precedent in Sprint Communications established that an assignee has standing even if it passes recovery to the original creditor. The assignment of duties from Chase to Alter Domus was valid under Michigan law.

Because the Agent was injured by Winget’s breach, Alter Domus had standing to secure the 2021 judgment and renew the 2015 judgment.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, No. 25-1958 (6th Cir. 2026)

What it means going forward

The ruling clarifies that third-party agents can enforce judgments on behalf of lenders without needing a direct financial stake in the underlying debt, provided the assignment of duties is valid.