Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Farran v. Penn Mortgage Co., Inc. (In re Farran)
No. 94-50944-JS (Bankr. D. Md. May 22, 1995) ; Clearinghouse Number: 50773
Description
Debtor Argues That Lender Did Not Qualify for Federal Preemption of State Law Limiting Loan Origination Fee
Abstract
The parties have settled this adversary proceeding in which
plaintiff-debtor consumer alleged that defendant lender violated
the Truth in Lending Act and state law. Debtor had obtained a
$10,000 loan from defendant, secured by a deed in trust on her
home. At the time of settlement, defendant charged debtor a
3½ point “origination fee.” The broker received
an $800 fee. The total charges at settlement were $2,804. Debtor
received $7,195. After debtor fell behind on the loan payments,
defendant sought to foreclose. Debtor filed for chapter 13
bankruptcy and sought to rescind the loan. Defendant refused to
honor the loan cancellation, and debtor brought this adversary
proceeding. Debtor alleged that defendant violated state law by
charging an excessive origination fee for the loan. Debtor argued
that defendant was not a qualified lender under the Depository
Institutions and Monetary Control Act of 1980, 12 U.S.C.
§§ 1735f-7a(a)(1), 1735-5(b)(2)(D), and therefore was not
qualified for federal preemption of the state law limiting the
origination fee or points it could charge. Debtor also alleged that
defendant violated the federal Truth in Lending Act by failing to
disclose accurately the finance charge, amount financed, annual
percentage rate, total payments, and each payment amount. On the
day of trial, the parties settled. Under the terms of the
settlement, defendant agreed to release debtor from any
indebtedness, to release the deed of trust, to dismiss the
foreclosure action, and to pay debtor’s attorney fees and
costs.
Additional Information
Files
- Objection to Proof of Claim and Complaint
- Response to Objection to Proof of Claim and Complaint
- Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support
- Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law and Statement of Facts in Support
- Plaintiff’s Pre-Trial Statement
- Reply to Response to Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support
- Consent Order Settling Adversary Proceeding
