Truth In Lending Case Law


Bardasian vs. Superior Court Santa Clara Partner's Mortgage Corp.


See These Homeowners Win 2011 Updates


"Must Have Promissory Note" Case Law Summaries



Bankruptcy case dismissed mortgage and reversed foreclosure. Lotfy's are living in property mortgage free. Court Documents


Guzman vs. Ocwen

$3,000,000 Jury Award Against Ocwen



Mentecki vs. Saxon Mortgage

"By their very nature, yield spread premiums are not compensation given for services actually performed by the broker." Mentecki v. Saxon Mortgage, Inc., 1997 WL 45088 (E.D. Va.)


Stark vs. EMC

The arbitrator found EMC’s forcible entry into the premises "reprehensible and outrageous and in total disregard of plaintiff’s [sic] legal rights" and awarded $6,000,000 in punitive damages against EMC. Id. app. at 17.1


Culpepper vs. Irwin a.k.a. Inland Mortgage

This action under Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Practices Act is now on its second visit to our court. The plaintiffs, who have home mortgage loans from Irwin Mortgage Corporation, claim that certain payments, called "yield spread premiums," that Irwin made to the mortgage brokers who handled the plaintiffs' loan applications are illegal kickbacks or referral fees under Section 8. The district court initially granted Irwin summary judgment, and on the action's first trip to this court, we reversed. Culpepper v. Inland Mortgage Corp. (Culpepper I), 132 F.3d 692, 694 (11th Cir.1998).2 (The court then explained in a published order denying rehearing (Culpepper II ) that its opinion-which merely reversed summary judgment-should of course not be read to require summary judgment in the plaintiffs' favor. The panel remanded for further proceedings.


Glover vs. Standard Federal

Named plaintiffs Lonnie and Dawn Glover acquired an adjustable rate mortgage for the purchase of their home in the late 1980s. In 1996, they refinanced

their loan and obtained a fixed-rate mortgage. Heartland brokered the 1996 transaction and Standard Federal funded and acquired the 1996 mortgage.

As part of the 1996 refinancing, Heartland brokered a mortgage for the Glovers with an "above par" interest rate and was subsequently paid a yield spread premium

("YSP") by Standard Federal. The payment of this YSP is the focus of the current dispute. The Glovers argue that the payment of the YSP constitutes a fee for the referral of a mortgage negotiated with interest rates that are disadvantageous to borrowers, and that this payment violates the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. § 2601, et. seq. RESPA was enacted to initiate significant reforms in the

real estate settlement process "to insure that consumers throughout the Nation are provided with greater and more timely information on the nature and costs of the settlement process and are protected from unnecessarily high settlement charges caused by certain abusive practices." 12 U.S.C. § 2601(a). RESPA prohibits the payment of some referral fees, stating: (see 12 U.S.C. § 2601(a))


Maxwell vs. Fairbanks


Merriman vs. Beneficial


Whitley vs. Rhodes


McIntosh vs. Irwin Bank and Trust

Recent Massachusetts Federal Court Case may Spur Truth In Lending Class Actions Seeking Rescission of Mortgage Loans


Truth In Lending Act Case Law


Noted Case Citations

1.  Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co. 680 F.2d 927, certiorari granted, vacated 103 S. Ct. 400, 459 U.S. 56, 74 L.Ed.2d 225, on remand 699 F.2d 642.

2.  Abele V. Mid-Penn Consumer Discount, 77B.R.460, affirmed 845 F.2d 1009

3.  Brophy v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Co, 947 F. Supp. 879.

4.  Basile v. H&R Block 897 F. Supp. 194.

5.  Re. Steinbrecher 110 B.R. 155 116 A.L.R. Fed. 881

6.  Lifschitz v. American Exp. Co. 560 F. Supp. 458

7.  Quino v. A-I Credjt Co. 635 F. Supp. 151


9.  O'Neil v. Four States Builders and Remodelers, Inc., 484 F. Supp. 18.

10. Geimuso v. Commercial Bank & Trust Co., 566 F.2d 437.

11. In Re Steinbrecher. 110 B,R. 155, 116 A.L.R. Fed. 881.

12. Gennuso v. Commercial Bank and Trust Co., 566 F.2d 437

13. Solis v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., 58 B.R. 983,

14. Whipp v. Iverson, 43 WI 2d 166.

15. Menominee River Co. v. Augustus Spies L & C Co., 147 WI 559, 572; 132 NW 1122

16. Bader vs. Williams, 61 A 2d 637

17. Barnsdall Refining Corn. v. Birnam Wood Oil Co., 92 F 2d 817.

18. Farmers and Miners Bank v. Bluefield Nat ‘l Bank, 11 F 2d 83, 271 U.S. 669.

19. Bowen v. Needles Nat. Bank, 94 F 925, 36 CCA 553, certiorari denied in 20 S.Ct 1024, 176 US 682, 44 LED 637.

20. Zinc Carbonate Co. v. First National Bank, 103 Wis 125, 79  NW 229.” American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 430.

21. Howard & Foster Co. v. Citizens Nat’l Bank of Union, 133 SC 202, 130 SE 759(1926).

22. Federal Intermediate Credit Bank v. L'Herrison, 33 F 2d 841, 842 (1929).

23. First National Bank of Tallapoosa v. Monroe, 135 GA 614, 69 SE 1124, 32 LRA (NS) 550.

24. Seligman v. Charlottesville Nat. Bank, 3 Hughes 647, Fed Case No.12, 642, 1039.

25. Guardian Agency v. Guardian Mutual Savings Bank, 227 WI 550, 279 NW 83.

26. St. Louis Savings Bank vs. Parmalee 95 U. S. 557


Regulation Z

What is The Right of Rescission?



Truth In Lending Complaint Sample


See Also: Case Law Summaries


| | Articles | Foreclosure Help | Legal Disclaimer |

| Case Law | Legal Resources| Resources | Privacy Policy |

| Site Map | About Us | Contact Us |



Bank Fraud Victim Center

Copyright © All rights reserved.