Sims v. New Penn Financial LLC | 7th Cir. Rejects ECOA Claim Based on Vague Statement by Defendant’s Employee - FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Sims v. New Penn Financial LLC | 7th Cir. Rejects ECOA Claim Based on Vague Statement by Defendant’s Employee

Posted on25 October 2018.

Sims v. New Penn Financial LLC | 7th Cir. Rejects ECOA Claim Based on Vague Statement by Defendant’s Employee

THE CFS BLOG-

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to prove a violation of the federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) under a disparate treatment theory where their only evidence was a vague statement from one of the defendant’s employees.

Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the ruling of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant.

A copy of the opinion in Mario Sims v. New Penn Financial LLC is available at:  Link to Opinion.

The plaintiffs, an African-American couple, purchased a home from the seller in October 2008 for $185,000.  The plaintiffs made a down payment of $12,000, and monthly payments of $1,400 to the seller for about one year.

[THE CFS BLOG]

© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

Related posts:

  1. Fla. Court Holds Payment Statement Sent After Consent Foreclosure Violated FCCPA, Rejects ‘Competent Attorney’ Standard Lexology- The Appellate Division of the Circuit Court of the...
  2. BLACKROCK ALLOCATION TARGET SHARES: SERIES S PORTFOLIO v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. | SDNY – Plaintiffs claim that Defendant discovered pervasive documentation errors, breaches of seller representations and warranties (“R&Ws”), and systemic loan-servicing violations, but disregarded its contractual obligations to protect Plaintiffs therefrom because, among other consequences, doing so would have exposed Defendant to liability for its own RMBS-related misconduct   BLACKROCK ALLOCATION TARGET SHARES: SERIES S PORTFOLIO, et al.,...
  3. Bank of New York Mellon v Perricone | NYSC – Pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)(5) to dismiss the reformation claim based on statute of limitations is GRANTED SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF...
  4. Sanabria v. PENNYMAC MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST HOLDINGS I LLC | FL 2DCA- “the copy of the note attached to the complaint does not contain Defendant’s signature and is not the note signed by Defendant.”   LUZ SANABRIA and GAETANO PIRO, Appellants, v. PENNYMAC MORTGAGE...
  5. The SHIT Done Hit The PLAN? | HINRICHSEN v. Bank of America, NA | TILA | Specifically, Plaintiff’s theory of liability on each of his claims is as follows: On January 12, 2012, Plaintiff exercised a conditional right of rescission based on MLD’s failure to satisfy TILA’s disclosure requirements. >> MLD did not contest the rescission << , and as such, the deed of trust and promissory note became void "by operation of law", and unenforceable by any alleged successor to MLD," including Defendant. (SAC ¶ 22.) Nevertheless, Defendant initiated foreclosure proceedings against the property "in an attempt to collect on the underlying unenforceable debt[.]" (Id. ¶ 23.) Here, Plaintiff argues MLD has not taken any of these...

This post was written by:

- who has written 11546 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author


Leave a Reply


Advert

Archives

Please Support Me!







Write your comment within 199 characters.

All Of These Are Troll Comments

175,115 spam blocked by Akismet