Tag: UDTPA

N.C. Ct. of App.: Fazzari v. Infinity Partners- No Negligent Underwriting Cause of Action for Purchase of Real Estate

Summary:

Plaintiffs brought suit against, among other, lenders that had financed mortgage loans for the development of investment properties, alleging that the appraisals conducted, which unanimously and uniformly valued real property lots, regardless of specific qualities or locations, for $500,000, the exact minimum to support the mortgage lender’s underwriting requirements, constituted both negligent underwriting and also an unfair trade practice.

Following shortly after the Dallaire opinion from the North Carolina Supreme Court (see: http://ncbankruptcyexpert.com/?p=4791 ) the Court of Appeals recited that only in exceptional circumstances would a fiduciary duty arise between a lender and borrower and even then the “borrower cannot establish a claim for negligent misrepresentation based on a loan officer’s statements .… Read More

Tagged with: , ,

E.D.N.C.: Owens v. Dixie Motors- FCRA, Improperly Obtaining Credit Report; Emotional Distress; Direct and Vicarious Liability; Pre-emption

Summary:

Nina Owens purchased an automobile from Dixie Motors in 2007, providing information including her home address, date of birth, social security number, phone number, insurance agent, insurance company, employment information, monthly mortgage payment. Ashley Owens, the daughter of Nina Owens, considered purchasing a vehicle from Dixie Motors in 2011, supplying similar credit information and personal identifiers. The credit application by Ashley Owens was declined, but at the same time Janet Pierce, the finance manager for Dixie Motors, completed an credit application in the name of Nina Owens. (It was disputed whether Nina Owens was aware and approved of the credit application or not.) Pierce subsequently inadvertently sent sensitive credit information and personal identifiers for both Nina and Ashley Owens when she included credit applications in a letter to Antwand Cherry, a.k.a.… Read More

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,

Bankr. E.D.N.C.: In re Black- UDTPA Claims not Pre-empted by 11 U.S.C. § 362

Summary:

Black’s Chapter 13 plan provided for the mortgage to Chase to be paid as a conduit, through the Trustee. The Motion for Confirmation filed by the Trustee, however, inadvertently provided for direct payment of the mortgage by Black, without reduction of the plan payment. This disconnect lead to the completion of the Chapter 13 plan on November 29, 2012, only four months after confirmation. (As this case was confirmed prior to the Pliler decision from the 4th Circuit, it completed upon payment of all allowed secured claims, of which there were none, and administrative expenses.) Two days prior, a lien holder filed a claim secured by Black’s motorcycle.… Read More

Tagged with: , , ,

M.D.N.C.: Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A.- Internet Payday Lenders not required parties to action; Claims against facilitators of Internet Payday Loans

Summary:

Dillon, a North Carolina resident, obtained five loans over the internet from lenders based offshore or on Indian reservations (“internet lenders”) with interest rates ranging from 139% to over 700% and, in some cases, thousands of dollars in finance charges. Mr. Dillon asserted that these loans violated North Carolina’s usury statute and various other state laws. He did not, however, sue the internet lenders themselves, but instead brought suit against the banks that served as the Originating Depository Financial Institutions (“ODFIs”) in connection with transactions related to the loans, alleging that the defendant ODFIs knew or should have known that the internet lenders were engaged in making payday loans in states where the loans were unlawful and that the ODFIs violated RICO by knowingly facilitating the collection of usurious loans.… Read More

Tagged with: , , ,

N.C. Ct. of Appeal: Petri v. Bank of America- Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel from Foreclosure Proceeding

Summary:

Petri originally had a mortgage with Luxury Mortgage Corp., but subsequently Bank of America (“BOA”) commenced foreclosure proceedings. Appealing the order allowing foreclosure, Petri argued that BOA was not the true holder of the note authorized to foreclose. The Superior Court found that the original note had been transferred to BOA and further held that it was a valid debt, that Petri was in default, that BOA had a right to foreclose under the note, and that all proper parties had received notice, thereby meeting the requirements of N.C.G.S. § 45-21.16 and allowing the foreclosure to proceed. Petri then filed a separate complaint seeking to enjoin the foreclosure and asserting, among other causes of action, various UDTPA violations by BOA in failing to comply with a federal consent judgment.… Read More

Tagged with: , , ,
Top