Truth In Lending Case Law
Bardasian vs. Superior Court Santa Clara Partner's Mortgage Corp.
These Homeowners Win 2011 Updates
Promissory Note" Case Law Summaries
Lotfy vs. MERS and INDYMAC BANK
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.
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
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
plaintiffs Lonnie and Dawn Glover acquired an adjustable rate mortgage for the
purchase of their home in the late 1980s. In 1996, they refinanced
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
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
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
Whitley vs. Rhodes
Irwin Bank and Trust
Massachusetts Federal Court Case may Spur Truth In Lending
Class Actions Seeking Rescission of Mortgage Loans
Truth In Lending Act Case Law
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.
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.
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
v. Four States Builders and Remodelers, Inc., 484 F. Supp. 18.
Geimuso v. Commercial Bank & Trust Co., 566 F.2d 437.
In Re Steinbrecher. 110 B,R. 155, 116 A.L.R. Fed.
Gennuso v. Commercial Bank and Trust
Co., 566 F.2d 437
Solis v. Fidelity Consumer Discount Co., 58 B.R. 983,
Iverson, 43 WI 2d 166.
Menominee River Co. v.
Augustus Spies L & C Co., 147 WI 559, 572; 132 NW 1122
Bader vs. Williams, 61 A 2d 637
Barnsdall Refining Corn. v.
Birnam Wood Oil Co., 92 F 2d 817.
Farmers and Miners Bank
v. Bluefield Nat ‘l Bank, 11 F 2d 83, 271
Bowen v. Needles Nat.
Bank, 94 F 925, 36 CCA 553, certiorari denied in 20 S.Ct 1024, 176 US 682, 44
Zinc Carbonate Co. v.
First National Bank, 103 Wis 125, 79 NW 229.”
American Express Co. v. Citizens State Bank, 194 NW 430.
Foster Co. v. Citizens Nat’l Bank of Union, 133 SC 202, 130 SE
Credit Bank v. L'Herrison, 33 F 2d 841, 842 (1929).
First National Bank of Tallapoosa v. Monroe, 135 GA 614, 69 SE
1124, 32 LRA (NS) 550.
Charlottesville Nat. Bank, 3 Hughes 647, Fed Case No.12, 642, 1039.
Guardian Agency v. Guardian
Mutual Savings Bank, 227 WI 550, 279 NW 83.
St. Louis Savings Bank vs. Parmalee 95 U. S. 557
What is The Right of Rescission?
Lending Complaint Sample
Also: Case Law Summaries
Foreclosure Help |
Legal Disclaimer |
About Us |
Bank Fraud Victim Center
All rights reserved.