COMMONWEALTH V. FREMONT INVESTMENT & LOAN
897 N.E.2d 548 (2008)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Fremont (D) appeals from a preliminary injunction granted by a judge
in the Superior Court in favor of the Attorney General (P) that restricts, but does not
remove, D's ability to foreclose on loans with features that the judge described as
'presumptively unfair.'
FACTS: D is an industrial bank chartered by the State of California. D originated 14,578
loans to Massachusetts residents secured by mortgages on owner-occupied homes. An estimated
fifty to sixty per cent of Fremont's loans in Massachusetts were subprime. Because subprime
borrowers present a greater risk to the lender, the interest rate charged for a subprime
loan is typically higher than the rate charged for conventional or prime mortgages. After
funding the loan, D generally sold it on the secondary market, which largely insulated D
from losses arising from borrower default. Mortgage brokers acting as independent
contractors would help a borrower select a mortgage product, and communicate with a D
account executive to request a selected product and provide the borrower's loan application
and credit report. If approved by D's underwriting department, the loan would proceed to
closing and the broker would receive a broker's fee. A large majority of D's subprime loans
were adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) loans. Payments would start out lower and then increase
substantially after the introductory two-year or three-year period. D generally required
that borrowers have a debt-to-income ratio of less than or equal to fifty per cent. D
considered only the monthly payment required for the introductory rate period of the
mortgage loan, not the payment that would ultimately be required at the substantially higher
'fully indexed' interest rate. D offered loans with no down payment. D would finance the
full value of the property, resulting in a 'loan-to-value ratio' approaching one hundred per
cent. There would be a first mortgage providing eighty per cent financing and an additional
'piggy-back loan' providing twenty per cent. When P initiated this case in 2007, a
significant number of D's loans were in default. D came to terms with the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation (FDIC), settling charges of unsound banking practices and agreed to
cease and desist from originating ARM products to subprime borrowers in ways described as
unsafe and unsound, including making loans with low introductory rates without considering
borrowers' ability to pay the debt at the fully indexed rate, and with loan-to-value ratios
approaching one hundred per cent. D also entered into a term sheet letter agreement with P
agreeing to give P ninety days' notice before foreclosing on any Massachusetts residential
mortgage loan. If P objected, D agreed to negotiate in good faith to resolve the objection,
possibly by modifying the loan agreement. P objected to every proposed foreclosure except
those where the home was not owner-occupied and Fremont had been unable to contact the
borrower. P then filed this action and a motion for preliminary injunctive relief. The judge
granted a preliminary injunction. The judge reasoned that D as a lender should have
recognized that its ARM 100% loans were 'doomed to foreclosure' unless the borrower could
refinance the loan at or near the end of the introductory rate period. With housing prices
falling it was virtually impossible to get a new loan. D was ordered to work with P and to
obtain court approval for each foreclosure. This appeal resulted. D contends its loans are
exempt from c. 93A because all of D's challenged loan terms were permitted under the Federal
and Massachusetts laws and regulatory standards governing mortgage lenders. D also contends
that the judge erred in determining that the public interest would be served by the
preliminary injunction order.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment