SWANSON V. CITIBANK, N.A. 614 F.3d 400 (7th Cir. 2010) CASE BRIEF

SWANSON V. CITIBANK, N.A.

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

NATURE OF THE CASE: Swanson (P) appealed a dismissal of his suit against Citibank (D) and appraisers for common law fraud and violation of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C.S. 3605(a).

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 onsite 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.

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.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner