contracts

fraudulent misrepresentation

Fraudulent misrepresentation is a tort claim, typically arising in the field of contract law, that occurs when a defendant makes a intentional or reckless misrepresentation of fact or opinion with the intention to coerce a party into action or inaction on the basis of that misrepresentation.

Taxonomy upgrade extras

fundamental right

Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore

Issues

  1. Do loan guarantors have the same rights and protections that their applicant spouses are given by the Equal Credit Opportunity Act?
  2. Does the Federal Reserve Board have the authority to define guarantors as applicants for purposes of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act?

 

The Supreme Court will consider whether protections for applicants in the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) also extend to spouses who sign guaranties, and whether the Federal Reserve Board (the “Fed”), in promulgating Regulation B, permissibly expanded the definition of “applicant” in the ECOA to include such guarantors. See Brief for Petitioners, Hawkins & Patterson at i, 8; Brief for Respondent, Community Bank of Raymore at i. The loan guarantors in this case (Hawkins and Patterson) maintain that ECOA’s protections for applicants extend to guarantors, because the ECOA does not explicitly exclude them, and Regulation B clarifies that the ECOA definition of applicants includes guarantors. See Brief for Petitioners at 16, 56. Accordingly, Hawkins and Patterson assert that they have standing to sue to invalidate the loan agreement as illegal and unenforceable under ECOA.  See id. at 51. Raymore, the creditor here, counters that the plain language of the ECOA protects only applicants, not guarantors. See Brief for Respondent at 17–21. Raymore contends that any attempt by the Fed, through Regulation B, to expand the definition of “applicant” in the ECOA to include guarantors was impermissible. See id. at 46. The Supreme Court’s  decision in this case  could affect the cost of borrowing and change the underwriting standards and costs for loans to married business owners.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

  1. Whether “primarily and unconditionally liable” spousal guarantors are unambiguously excluded from being Equal Credit Opportunity Act applicants because they are not integrally part of “any aspect of a credit transaction”; and
  2. Whether the Federal Reserve Board has authority under the ECOA to include by regulation spousal guarantors as “applicants” to further the purposes of eliminating discrimination against married women.

This case begins with a loan dispute between Valerie Hawkins and Janice Patterson, as guarantors, and the Community Bank of Raymore, (“Raymore”), as creditor. See Hawkins v. Cmty. Bank of Raymore, 761 F.3d 937, 939 (8th Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans

Issues

May a borrower simply provide written notice to a creditor to exercise a statutory right to rescind a home-secured loan under the Truth In Lending Act, or must the borrower file a lawsuit to exercise that right?

This case presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to determine the procedural requirements for exercising the right to rescission under the Truth In Lending Act (“TILA”). The Jesinoskis argue that if a creditor fails to strictly comply with TILA’s terms, then borrowers only need to provide written notice in order to rescind a loan any time within a three-year period. Meanwhile, Countrywide maintains that any rescission occurring after the first three days of the loan requires a lawsuit if the rescission is contested by the creditor. This case ultimately will determine who bears the cost of litigation in rescinding home-secured loans, and also determines the scope of TILA’s protection for borrowers.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

The Truth in Lending Act provides that a borrower “shall have the right to rescind the transaction until midnight of the third business day following . . . the delivery of the information and rescission forms required under this section ... by notifying the creditor ... of his intention to do so.” 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a). The Act further creates a “[t]ime limit for [the] exercise of [this] right,” providing that the borrower’s “right of rescission shall expire three years after the date of consummation of the transaction” even if the “disclosures required ... have not been delivered.” Id. § 1635(f). 

The question presented is: 

Does a borrower exercise his right to rescind a transaction in satisfaction of the requirements of Section 1635 by “notifying the creditor” in writing within three years of the consummation of the transaction, as the Third, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, or must a borrower file a lawsuit within three years of the consummation of the transaction, as the First, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have held?

On February 23, 2007, Larry and Cheryle Jesinoski refinanced their home for a $611,000 loan from Countrywide Home Loans. See Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 11-cv-0474-DWF-FLN, 2012 WL 1365751, at *1 (D. Minn. Apr. 19, 2012).

Written by

Edited by

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Cynthia Farina for her guidance.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Kindred Nursing Centers v. Clark

Issues

Does the Federal Arbitration Act preempt a state-law contract rule that requires a power of attorney to expressly refer to arbitration agreements before an attorney-in-fact can bind her principal to such an agreement? 

The Court must consider whether federal law preempts state law regarding arbitration clauses in powers-of-attorneys. Kindred Nursing Centers argues that state law, which requires principals to explicitly authorize an agent to enter into arbitration agreements, violates the Federal Arbitration Act. Contrarily, Janis E. Clark and Beverly Wellner argue that state law governs contract formation and that state law requires powers-of-attorneys to adhere to the expressed intentions of the principal in a contract. The case will determine whether powers-of-attorney must explicitly grant the agent the power to bind the grantor to an arbitration agreement and may impact elder care and estate planning practices across the United States.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a state-law contract rule that singles out arbitration by requiring a power of attorney to expressly refer to arbitration agreements before the attorney-in-fact can bind her principal to an arbitration agreement.

Petitioners Kindred Nursing Centers et al. (“Kindred Nursing”) operate nursing homes and rehabilitation centers, including the Winchester Centre for Health and Rehabilitation. See Kindred Nursing Centers v. Clark, 478 S.W.3d 306 (Ky. 2015). Respondents Janis E.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

mailbox rule

The mailbox rule, also called the posting rule, refers to the default rule in contracts law for determining when an offer was accepted. Under the mailbox rule, an offer is considered accepted the moment the offeree mails their letter, rather than when the offeror receives the letter in the mail.

New York v. New Jersey

Issues

Does the language of the Waterfront Commission Compact, which grants the Waterfront Commission broad policing and regulatory powers, permit New Jersey to unilaterally withdraw from the compact? 

Court below
Original Jurisdiction

This case asks the Court to determine whether New Jersey can unilaterally withdraw from the Waterfront Commission Compact, which it signed with New York in 1953. New York argues that New Jersey cannot withdraw without New York’s agreement because the Compact’s writers intended to bar unilateral withdrawal. New York also argues that unilateral withdrawal would violate New York sovereignty. New Jersey argues that indefinite compacts with continuing duties, like the Waterfront Commission Compact, always allow unilateral withdrawal unless specifically stated otherwise. New Jersey further alleges that requiring mutual withdrawal would prevent New Jersey from reclaiming its sovereign powers. The outcome of this case will impact interstate compacts throughout the nation, state sovereignty, and anti-crime and anti-corruption efforts within the waterfront of New York and New Jersey.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Supreme Court should issue declaratory judgment and/or enjoin New Jersey from withdrawing from its Waterfront Commission Compact with New York, which grants the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor broad regulatory and law-enforcement powers over all operations at the Port of New York and New Jersey.  

In order to address criminal activity and corrupt hiring practices within the Port of New York, former New York Governor Thomas Dewey ordered an investigation of the port in November 1951. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor v. Murphy at 2. The New York State Crime Commission, in conjunction with the New Jersey Law Enforcement Council, subsequently investigated the port, discovering rampant criminal activity. Id.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg

Issues

Does the Airline Deregulation Act preempt a state claim for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing concerning a frequent flyer program?

S. Binyomin Ginsberg sued Northwest Airlines, now Delta Airlines, after Northwest terminated his “WorldPerks” frequent flyer membership. Ginsberg asserted four state contract causes of action. Northwest argues that Ginsberg’s claims are preempted under the Airline Deregulation Act (“ADA”) of 1978, which preempts states from enacting or enforcing laws related to the price, route, or service of airline transportation. The District Court for the Southern District of California granted Northwest’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding—in conflict with other circuit courts—that Ginsberg’s claim for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was not preempted. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that nothing in the ADA suggested that Congress intended to displace state common law contract claims that were only peripherally related to deregulation. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the circuit split over whether state contract claims are preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act. The Court will also determine whether the Act preempts claims arising out of frequent flyer programs. The Court’s decision will impact the balance of state and federal regulatory interests under the ADA, and the scope of other federal preemption regimes.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Did the court of appeals err by holding, in conflict with the decisions of other Circuits, that respondent’s implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim was not preempted under the ADA because such claims are categorically unrelated to a price, route, or service, notwithstanding that respondent’s claim arises out of a frequent flyer program (the precise context of Wolens) and manifestly enlarged the terms of the parties’ voluntary undertakings, which allowed termination in Northwest’s sole discretion. 

top

Facts

The Airline Deregulation Act (“ADA”) of 1978 preempts states from enacting or enforcing laws or regulations related to the price, route, or service of an air carrier. In January 1995, the Supreme Court held that complaints associated with frequent flyer programs are related to the price, route, or service of an air carrier.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

top

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to contracts