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
The failure to talk to the justice of the peace is not evidence of fraud; see Young v Hoger [2001] QCA 453 at [26]. The other conduct by the agents did not amount to fraud either as a result the court finds in favor of the plaintiff thus requiring Mr Gray to pay the mortgage and pursue legal action against SHELLA LONERGAN in pursuit of recovery of funds, as Fraud must be shown to have been practised against the person who seek relief who in this case is Mr
On 06/29/2016 at approximately 2106 Arlington Police Department were dispatched to a domestic violence call at 18112 31st AVE NE, Arlington, WA 98223. Involved parties are Leonard, Andreu A. (09/25/1999) and Leonard, Frank J. (11/23/1977).
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.
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
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.
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.
United States has several laws that ensure that competition among businesses flow rely and new competitors get free access to the market. These laws intend to ensure fair and balanced competitive business practices. However, there are times when some businesses will do anything to gain competitive edge. USA has strong antitrust laws that prohibit fixing market price, price discrimination, conspiring boycott, monopolizing, and adopting unfair business practices. The history of Antitrust laws goes back to 1890 when Congress passed Sherman Act. In 1914, Congress passed two more acts: Federal Trade Commission Act, and Clayton Act. With some revisions, these three acts are still core antitrust acts.
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). ...
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
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...
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.
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
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.
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.