Quicken Loans, Inc. v. Brown

737 S.E.2d 640 (2012)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P refinanced the subject property in August 2003, for $40,518; in January 2004, for $63,961; and in May 2005, for $67,348. She also took out four separate loans for $1,500, $3,060, $5,000 and $7,650, respectively, with interest rates ranging from 24.99% to 31.00%. In an effort to consolidate her debt and lower her monthly payments, P completed an online loan application after receiving a 'pop-up' advertisement on her computer. D contacted P. D requested that Title Source, Inc. ('TSI') arrange for an appraisal of the subject property. TSI, an appraisal management company, is a 'sister company' to D as they are owned by the same parent company, Rock Holdings. TSI's appraisal request order included an estimated value for the subject property of $262,500. TSI valued the property at $181,700. In fact, the true fair market value of the subject property was actually $46,000. There were obvious and blatant errors in the appraisal. D presented P with a loan for $112,850, with monthly payments that were higher than what she had expected based upon the initial 'pop up' advertisement. P said she was not interested. D kept calling back. P agreed to the loan on June 6, 2006. The loan originally presented to P was in the amount of $112,850. The loan was an interest-only loan for the first three years and also provided for P to purchase 2.5 'loan discount points' resulting in a variable interest rate of 8.5% and an initial payment of $799 per month. This loan had no balloon payment feature. The loan at issue herein was for the much larger amount of $144,800, and the terms of this loan, the annual interest rate was 9.25% for the first three years and then adjusted every six months thereafter, to a maximum rate of 16.25% and a minimum of 7.75%. P's monthly payment for the first three years was $1,144, excluding taxes and insurance. This loan product was unique because it was a thirty-year loan that was amortized over forty years, resulting in a $107,015.71 balloon payment at the end of the loan period. D did not provide P with a written 'Good Faith Estimate' for this loan. P got the closing documents at her home, and a Notary appeared to do the closing. The Notary was simply there to take signatures on the documents and could not explain anything about any of them to P. P saw documents and didn’t bother to read or understand any of them. Further, on the points issue, it appears that $2100 of the points money was unaccounted for in the closing. h the loan proceeds, P paid off her previous mortgage and consolidated debt; received $40,768.78, with which she purchased a new vehicle (for $28,536.90); retired other existing debt; and made the first two payments on the loan. P began to call to request a refinance in October 2006. P underwent surgery and was out of work. P defaulted. P provided statutory notice of a claim, and D offered no cure and began foreclosure. P sued claiming she was victim of predatory lending. The court found against D. It held the note unenforceable, and a trial on punitive damages yielding a judgment for P in excess of $2.1 million. D appealed.