The affiliation between MSIII, Ocwen, & Selene was not recorded with the loan, which is a violation of RESPA's HUD Affiliated Business Arrangement Disclosure Statement. 12 USC § 2602(7). If a person directly or indirectly refers business to that provider or affirmatively influences the selection of the affiliated business, they must disclose the nature of the relationship they have with the provider of the settlement services and of an estimated range of charges made by the provider. The disclosure must be made no later than the time the referral is made. 24 CFR § 3500.15(b)(1). 11. The Plaintiffs received no notice of the alleged sale of our loan from MSIII to Allquest. Other than the Allonge that is not affixed to the loan docs, there is
When doing an evaluation of any case, you should always look at all the relevant facts and issues involved before jumping to conclusions. As for this case, Mike Thurmond, the operator of Top Quality Auto Sales, a used car dealership, has financed his dealerships inventory of vehicles by creating a financing arrangement with Indianapolis Car Exchange (ICE). ICE then filed a financing statement that listed Top Quality’s inventory as collateral for the financing. After this, Top Quality sold a Ford truck to Bonnie Chrisman, who was also a used car dealer. Chrisman paid Top Quality for the truck and then proceeded to sell it Randall and Christina Alderson, who paid Chrisman for the vehicle. In
Maria had spoken with Eva over the phone concerning the correct total amount of $60,000 for rendering decorating services provided by Eva. Maria had sent a letter of the telephone conversation stating that Eva agreed to take $60,000 in full satisfaction obligation under the contract. Although Eva, changed her mind when depositing the check in the bank, she legally entered a mutual agreement over the telephone where it resulted in a unliquidated debt, payment is lower than actual.
Ms. Read reported the interest income from the installment promissory note in her 1988, 1989, and 1990 tax returns. However, she did not report any principal income from the stock transfer transaction in her tax return. Mr. Read also
I have had an opportunity to discuss with my client the possibility of waiving the balance of our lien in exchange for the claimant’s waiver of her rights to additional benefits pursuant to Burns v. Varriale. My client is not interested in any additional waiver of its lien.
In accordance with the law, self-referrals are unethical practices that involve a physicians’ referral of patients to entities in which they have a financial interest. A financial interest may arise from owning a part of or having investment in the entity. A financial interest may also occur when a physician has a “structured compensation arrangement” with a health care facility or entity (O’Sullivan 2007). ...
In the early 1900s, “restrictive covenants” more specifically racially restrictive covenants were legally enforceable agreements that prohibited landowners from leasing or selling property to minority groups, at that time namely African Americans. The practice of the covenants, private, racially restrictive covenants, originated as a reaction to a court ruling in 1917 “which declared municipally mandated racial zoning unconstitutional . . . leaving the door open for private agreements, such as restrictive covenants, to continue to perpetuate residential segregation” (Boston, n.d.). It was more of a symbolic act than attacking the “discriminatory nature” (Schaefer, 2012, p. 184) of the restrictive covenants, when the Supreme Court found in the 1948 case of Shelley v Kraemer that racially restrictive covenants were unconstitutional. In this particular case, a white couple, the Kraemers lived in a neighborhood in Missouri that was governed by a restrictive covenant. When a black couple moved into their neighborhood, the Kraemers went to the court asking that the covenant be enforced. In a unanimous decision, it was decided, “state courts could not constitutionally prevent the sale of real property to blacks even if that property is covered by a racially restrictive covenant. Standing alone, racially restrictive covenants violate no rights. However, their enforcement by state court injunctions constitutes state action in violation of the 14th Amendment” (Shelley v. Kraemer, 1948). Even though the Supreme Court ruled that the covenants were unenforceable, it was not until 1968 when the Fair Housing Act was passed that it become illegal (Latshaw, 2010). Even though today it is illegal, it might appear that we still have an unspoken...
Palgo Holdings Pty Ltd carried on a business of making small secured loans. Each borrower would sign a two-part document. The first part of the document, titled “Secured Loan Agreement”, recorded the amount of the loan and the date on which the principal and interest was due. The second part of the document, titled “Bill of Sale/Goods Mortgage”, was made as a deed between the borrower as mortgagor and the lender as mortgagee. It also recorded that the terms of the bill of sale were set out in the schedule of terms attached.
Had Mr Virgo disclosed all information to the Amadio’s, especially when Mr Amadio made the statement which suggested he was not properly informed of the terms of the mortgage, and the Amadio’s understood everything, they would not have been able to take to court the Commercial Bank of Australia on the grounds of unconscionable conduct. The fact that their ‘special disadvantage’ was exploited gave passage for them to receive equitable relief for unconscionable
In the pleadings, a complaint needs to be filed by the plaintiff with the court and the defendants. In this case, the complaint was filed for wrongful death and injunctions. The complaint was given to both companies on May 14, 1982. Then, the defendants must answer within twenty-four hours of receiving the complaint to the summon or risk losing the case by default of the court. W.R. Grace denied the allegations against them. Also, their other defenses was that the complaint didn’t state any cause of action, in the complaint the company named was misnamed, the company followed the due of care at all times and acted in “good faith,” and the claims against them are barred. The next step is the methods of discovery.
Advises the borrower(s) that in the event the real estate vendor did not provide the Residential Property Disclosure or Disclaimer Statement, they have the unconditional right to rescind the contract of sale, within 5 days following receipt of this notice.
Fraudulent misrepresentation is one of three types of misrepresentations in contract law. In order to ...
b.) The Truth in Lending Act- establishes disclosure rules for sales involving consumer credit. It requires written agreement and four or more installments. The lending organization must disclose the following under Regulation Z: Annual percentage rate, amount of the finance charge, amount of the principal, amount of payments, number of payments, total of all payments, late charge arrangements, prepayment arrangements, and an opportunity for the debtor to receive an itemization of how the payments are to be
Defendant sent plaintiff a document titled ‘Agreement for Sale’ and the letter indicates that if Mr. Storer sign the Agreement and return it, the defendant will send Mr. Storer the Agreement signed on behalf of the council in exchange. Therefore, Mr. Storer signed and returned the ‘Agreement for Sale’, however, the defendant refused to sell the property to Mr. Storer. The court held that to a reasonable man, the defendant letter appeared to commit to sell the property if plaintiff returned the signed document. Thus, it was an offer.
In cases between Adams v Lindsell. The defendant, Lindsell wrote the to the plaintiff, that state Lindsell offering to sell them some quantity of wool on 2nd September. Lindsell requested that the plaintiff, Adam to reply in course of post. However the letter was contained the offer that should be sent to Adam was wrongly addressed lindsell should sent the letter of the offer to Bromsgrove Leceister but it’s sent by the mistakes to Bromsgrove Worcestershire. Adam didn’t received any letter of the offer from Lindsell until 5th September. As the result of this delay, the letter of an offer does not received by Adam until 9th September, and to receive it. Because of the mistakes, this was two day later, Lindsell would have expected to received it. On 8th September Lindsell had sell he wool and gived the offer to the third party. Adam have brought of suits for the losses their sustained by not receiving the fleeches.
The plaintiff failed due to not being able to firmly establish the existence of a unilateral contract. If the defendant did not construct a contract, then he has no liabilities to withhold. He was unable to provide enough evidence on the contract and was leaving aspects