Swanson v. Citibank, N.A.

614 F.3d 400 (7th Cir. 2010)

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

D announced a plan to make loans using funds that it had received from the federal government's Troubled Assets Relief Program. P went to D to apply for a home-equity loan. The representative told P that she could not apply alone because she owned her home jointly with her husband; he had to be present as well. P was trigger ready to accuse D or racial discrimination. P asked to speak to a manager. When the manager joined the group, P disclosed to D that Washington Mutual Bank previously had denied her a home-equity loan. The manager warned P that, although she did not want to discourage P from applying for the loan, D's loan criteria were more stringent than those of other banks. P took an application and returned and was conditionally approved for a home-equity loan of $50,000. D hired Andre Lanier, who worked for PCI Appraisal Services, to visit P's home for an on-site appraisal. P had estimated in her loan application that her house was worth $270,000, Lanier appraised it at only $170,000. D turned down the loan and explained that its conditional approval had been based on the higher valuation. P paid for and obtained an appraisal from Midwest Valuations, which thought her home was worth $240,000. P sued Ds. P claimed a violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3605, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691(a)(1). The district court granted Ds' motions to dismiss both theories. It relied heavily on Latimore v. Citibank Fed. Savings Bank, 151 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 1998), a case in which this court described the evidence required to defeat a defense motion for summary judgment on a credit discrimination claim. The statements on which P relied were too indefinite, and her reliance was unreasonable. P appealed.