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
Butler v. Beneficial Homeowner Service Corporation
No. 01-CV-6450 CJS(F) (W.D.N.Y. Filed September 14, 2001) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55823
Description
Low-Income Homeowners Sue Finance Company for Charging Exorbitantly Priced Mortgage Loans Violating Federal Lending and Home Ownership Laws
Abstract
Plaintiffs—a class of low-income New York homeowners divided
into four subclasses—filed their complaint charging that
defendant finance company violated the Home Ownership Equity
Protection Act, the Truth in Lending Act, and state law. They
contend that defendant, through misrepresentation, unfair and
deceptive practices, and other unconscionable conduct, entices
class members to enter into mortgage loan transactions that provide
little or no benefit to borrowers and consider only
borrowers’ equity in their homes, not their ability to repay
the loans. Plaintiffs further allege that defendant does not make
the disclosures required by federal and state law and that when
plaintiffs are unable to make mortgage payments defendant
refinances their mortgages, adding still more fees, or forecloses
on their property. They claim that defendant’s practice of
extending mortgage credit to consumers without regard to their
ability to pay is against public policy and that the mortgages are
therefore void. Plaintiffs seek class certification and an order
enjoining defendant from engaging in the practices that plaintiffs
challenge or from foreclosing on their property, granting
rescission, and voiding any lien or security interest that
defendant has against plaintiffs’ property.
