Latson v. Plaza Home Mortgage,
Inc., No. 12-1462 (1st Cir. 2/27/13).
Dismissal of plaintiffs' suit against
defendant-mortgage lender alleging state common law and statutory violations in
making two house loans is affirmed, where: 1) the good faith and fair dealing
claim was properly dismissed because the allegedly wrongful conduct all occurred
before the contracts existed, not in violation of their terms after formation,
and the covenant only governs conduct of parties after they have entered into a
contract; and 2) the statutory claim is time-barred - the statute of limitations for a 93A
action is four years, which had elapsed prior to suit.
The specific allegations were that prior to closing Plaza failed to provide Latson with a proper commitment letter, good-faith estimate, or other documents required by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601–2617, and gave them insufficient opportunity to review the terms of the loans. They also claimed that Plaza either "knew or should have known" that an appraisal of the property that the Latsons obtained at Plaza's request was "too high." The Latsons asserted that all these acts and omissions were actionable under both their common-law and statutory claims.
The specific allegations were that prior to closing Plaza failed to provide Latson with a proper commitment letter, good-faith estimate, or other documents required by the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601–2617, and gave them insufficient opportunity to review the terms of the loans. They also claimed that Plaza either "knew or should have known" that an appraisal of the property that the Latsons obtained at Plaza's request was "too high." The Latsons asserted that all these acts and omissions were actionable under both their common-law and statutory claims.
LATSON: Click
here: USCA1 Opinion
No comments:
Post a Comment