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
Scott v. Mayflower Home Improvement Corp.
A-M-350-95T2 (N.J. Super Ct. App. Div. filed Dec. 12,1995). ; Clearinghouse Number: 51164
Description
Amicus Argues That Trial Court Erred in Granting Summary Judgment to Bank in Class Action Against Home Improvement Fraud
Abstract
Amicus legal services program has filed its brief in this class
action against "equity skimming" by defendant home
improvement contractors and bank. Plaintiff consumers allege that
defendants violated state and federal law by fraudulently inducing
them to enter into agreements to finance home repairs. Bank, the
largest purchaser of paper from defendant contractors, had been
assigned at least 130 notes and mortgages by contractors. The trial
court granted the bank summary judgment, and, on appeal, amicus
argues that the trial court applied incorrect legal standards in
doing so. Amicus asserts that contractors and bank, even without
direct connection with named plaintiffs but with a connection with
the plaintiff class, are properly defendants. To release by summary
judgment any defendant with substantial connection with two other
defendant home repair contractors alleged to be at the point of the
home repair fraud, would be an injustice. Amicus also argues that
bank is properly a defendant in the class claims because the facts
as alleged set forth substantial legal claims; bank can be found
liable as an assignee of the home repair contractors under ordinary
contract law, state regulations concerning home repair contracts,
and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The statute of limitations
would not bar plaintiffs’ claims because recoupment by
reducing the amount owed is still available and because equitable
tolling may be available if certain TILA disclosures were
fraudulently concealed, as plaintiffs allege.
