![]() Quicken Loans relayed the borrower’s estimates of value to TSI, which passed those estimates on to contracted appraisers via appraisal engagement letters. Quicken Loans also collected information from potential borrowers, including an estimated value of their homes. 1990) (declining to consider “several documents that were not before the district court when it considered 2 3 In refinancing mortgages for thousands of West Virginia homes during the class period, Quicken Loans asked potential borrowers to complete an application sign a uniform deposit agreement authorizing Quicken Loans to “advance out-of-pocket expenses on behalf” for an appraisal, a credit report, or both and provide a deposit averaging $350. 3 We consider only the evidence presented at the summary judgment stage. _” refer, respectively, to the Joint Appendix and Sealed Joint Appendix filed by the parties in this appeal. For ease of reference, we continue to refer to this entity as TSI throughout this Citations to “J.A. ![]() Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Defendants, the record shows the following. Accordingly, we affirm in part and vacate and remand in part. However, we conclude that the district court erred in its analysis of the breach-of-contract claim. We agree with the district court that class certification is appropriate and that Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on their statutory claim. The district court agreed and granted summary judgment to Plaintiffs. 2 Plaintiffs allege that pressure tactics used by Quicken Loans and TSI to influence home appraisers to raise appraisal values to obtain higher loan values on their homes constituted a breach of contract and unconscionable inducement under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. from 2004 to 2009, “for whom Quicken obtained appraisals” from Defendant Amrock Inc., an appraisal management company formerly known as Title Source, Inc. 2 WYNN, Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs are a class of “ll West Virginia citizens who refinanced” a total of 2,769 mortgages with Defendant Quicken Loans Inc. Bordas, Jr., BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees. Beck, GUPTA WESSLER PLLC, Washington, D.C. Kipnis, BAILEY & GLASSER LLP, Cherry Hill, New Jersey Gregory A. Marshall, Charleston, West Virginia, Patricia M. Clarke, GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellants. Brown, Keith Levenberg, Washington, D.C., Edwina B. Walker, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Washington, D.C. Deepak Gupta, GUPTA WESSLER PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Boutrous, Jr., GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Appellants. Judge Niemeyer wrote a dissenting opinion. ![]() Judge Wynn wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge Floyd joined. Decided: MaAffirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part by published opinion. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. of West Virginia, Incorporated, Defendants - Appellants, and DEWEY V. AMROCK INC., f/k/a Title Source, Inc., d/b/a Title Source Inc. SHEA, Individually and on behalf of a class of persons, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part. The district court may consider the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to the extent that it is relevant for evaluating Quicken Loans' performance of the contracts. The court agreed with plaintiffs that the covenant of good faith and fair dealing applies to the parties' contract, but concluded that it cannot by itself sustain the district court's decision at this stage. The court explained that the district court will need to address defendants' contention that there were no damages suffered by those class members whose appraisals would have been the same whether or not the appraisers were aware of the borrowers' estimates of value-which one might expect, for example, if a borrower's estimate of value was accurate. However, the court concluded that the district court erred in its analysis of the breach-of-contract claim. The Fourth Circuit concluded that class certification is appropriate and that plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on their claims for conspiracy and unconscionable inducement. The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that pressure tactics used by Quicken Loans and TSI to influence home appraisers to raise appraisal values to obtain higher loan values on their homes constituted a breach of contract and unconscionable inducement under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |