Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/254466366/Richards-v-Tower-Loan
Timestamp: 2020-06-01 03:26:42
Document Index: 338066060

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2', '§ 1639', '§ 1639', '§\n1639', '§ 1639', '§ 1639', '§ 1639', '§ 1639', '§ 226', '§ 1639', '§ 1639', '§ 1639']

Richards v. Tower Loan | Arbitration | Truth In Lending Act
Court finds agreement to arbitrate in home mortgage invalid.
speichernRichards v. Tower Loan für später speichern
Linda Austin v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Incorporated, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Equal Employment Advisory Council, Amici Curiae. Linda Austin v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Incorporated, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Equal Employment Advisory Council, Amici Curiae, 78 F.3d 875, 4th Cir. (1996)
Continental Steel.doc
Hightower v. GMRI, Incorporated, 4th Cir. (2001)
Gas price reviews: Is arbitration the problem?
Licenseasdas
ConsultSIG-Exampleconsultingservicesagreement.doc
ADR FULL CASE 1-11
Case 1:15-cv-00007-LG-RHW
Filed 01/29/15
MARK GIBSON; HL & C JACKSON, LLC; and TOWER LOAN OF MISSISSIPPI, LLC
CAUSE NO. 1:15CV7-LG-RHW
BEFORE THE COURT is the [3] Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay
Proceedings Pending Arbitration filed by Defendant Tower Loan of Mississippi,
LLC. The Plaintiff entered into a residential loan agreement with Tower Loan. In
her complaint, Plaintiff brings numerous state and federal claims regarding the
handling of her loan and ultimate foreclosure. Tower seeks to enforce the alternate
dispute resolution provisions of the loan agreement and to compel resolution of
Plaintiff’s claims through arbitration. Having considered the submissions of the
parties and the applicable law, the Court is of the opinion that the arbitration
agreement is unenforceable.
Plaintiff Richards originally sued Defendants Tower, Mark Gibson, and HL &
C Jackson, LLC, in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Mississippi. After
Richards amended her Complaint to state federal claims against the defendants,
Tower, with the consent of the co-defendants, removed the action to this Court.
After doing so, Tower filed the present Motion.
On November 17, 2008, Tower made a residential loan to Richards secured by
a mortgage on Richards’ home. (See Am. Compl. 2 (¶¶ 8-9), ECF No. 3-2).
According to the allegations of her First Amended Complaint, Richards refinanced
the loan with Tower several times, which refinances were secured by the original
home mortgage and also by other property. (See id. at 3 (¶¶ 10-12)). The final
refinance agreement, which is the subject of this action, was in the amount of
$96,600.00 and took place on January 9, 2012. (See id. (¶12)).
Richards alleges that when it became hard for her to continue making her
monthly payments to Tower, she contacted Tower about a loan modification, which
Tower refused. (See id. at 5 (¶29)). She claims that Tower told her that it “was
going to foreclose on her home[,]” and that this was “seemingly in retaliation for
merely asking about a loan
.” (See id. (¶30)). She contends that a
Tower employee then referred her to Gibson, who “told Richards he could help.”
(See id. at 5-6 (¶¶ 35-43)).
Richards states that Gibson told her “that in order to avoid the foreclosure
[she] would have to sign an assumption warranty deed whereby [Gibson] obtained
title to Richards’ home.” (See id. at 6 (¶48)). She also states that Gibson “assured
her that he did not want her home[, but] stated he only wanted the money he paid
to Tower Loan for her mortgage.” (See id.). Richards thus transferred title to her
home to Gibson and/or HL & C and began making monthly payments to Gibson at
his request. However, Tower foreclosed a few months later and purchased Richards’
1 Richards alleges that “Gibson is the president, owner and sole shareholder of HL & C.” (Am. Compl. 2 (¶5), ECF No. 3-2).
home at the foreclosure sale. (See id. at 7 (¶¶ 49-55)).
Richards contends that the January 2012 loan from Tower violates provisions
of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act
(HOEPA) and that the defendants induced her “into a foreclosure rescue scam.”
(See id. (¶57)). She includes the following Counts against the defendants in her
First Amended Complaint: accounting, equitable mortgage, fraud, tortious breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, usury, violations of TILA/HOEPA, and
negligence. Tower has moved to compel arbitration of all claims based on the
Arbitration Agreement provision contained in Richards’ January 2012 refinance of
her mortgage loan with Tower.
The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides that arbitration agreements are
“valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in
equity for the revocation of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. The Fifth Circuit has
adopted a two-step inquiry for determining whether a party should be compelled to
arbitrate a dispute. See Banc One Acceptance Corp. v. Hill, 367 F.3d 426, 429 (5th
Cir. 2004). First, the Court must determine whether the parties agreed to arbitrate
the dispute. See id. If that question is “answered in the affirmative, [the] Court
then asks whether any federal statute or policy renders the claims nonarbitrable.”
Jones v. Halliburton Co., 583 F.3d 228, 234 (5th Cir. 2009) (citation and quotation
The United States Supreme Court has made clear that “[l]ike any statutory
directive, the [FAA]’s mandate may be overridden by a contrary congressional
command.” Shearson/Am. Exp., Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 226 (1987). “If
Congress did intend to limit or prohibit waiver of a judicial forum for a particular
claim, such an intent will be deducible from the statute’s text or legislative history,
or from an inherent conflict between arbitration and the statute’s underlying
purposes.” Id. at 227 (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted). “‘The
relevant inquiry remains whether Congress precluded arbitration or other
nonjudicial resolution of claims.’” D.R. Horton, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 737 F.3d 344, 360
(5th Cir. 2013) (citation, brackets, and ellipses omitted). “When considering
whether a contrary congressional command is present, courts must remember ‘that
questions of arbitrability must be addressed with a healthy regard for the federal
policy favoring arbitration.’” Id. (citation omitted). “The party opposing arbitration
bears the burden of showing whether a congressional command exists.” Id. “Any
doubts are resolved in favor or arbitration.” Id.
It is undisputed that the loan documents contain an arbitration provision. In
fact, both Richards and Tower attached the Agreement to their filings with this
Court. See Jones, 583 F.3d at 234; Brown v. Pac. Life Ins. Co., 462 F.3d 384, 396
(5th Cir. 2006) (even if the Court determines that the parties agreed to arbitrate, it
must then “determine if any legal constraints foreclose arbitration”). However,
Richards contends that she cannot be compelled to arbitrate the claims against
Tower in this action because federal statutes explicitly render such claims non-
Specifically, Richards argues that the Arbitration Agreement is
unenforceable under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act, PL 111-203, July 21, 2010, 124 Stat 1376. The Dodd-Frank Act “imposes,
among its many initiatives, the refinement and restriction of what has been
restated by the Supreme Court as a ‘national policy favoring arbitration of claims
that parties contract to settle in that manner.’” Pezza v. Investors Capital Corp.,
F. Supp. 2d 225, 226 (D. Mass. 2011) (quoting Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346,
(2008)); see also Weller v. HSBC Mortg. Servs., Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 1072, 1077
(D. Colo. 2013) (“The Dodd-Frank Act imposes
the refinement and restriction of
the FAA’s policy favoring arbitration of claims.”) (citation and quotation marks
omitted). The provision of the Act upon which Richard relies states, in pertinent
No residential mortgage loan
the consumer may include terms which require arbitration or any other nonjudicial procedure as the method for resolving any controversy or settling any claims arising out of the transaction.
secured by the principal dwelling of
15 U.S.C. § 1639c(e).
Richards sole argument is that according to the text of § 1639c(e) it is clear
that Congress intended to prohibit waiver of a judicial forum for the claims at issue
and the statute “prohibits Tower from forcing Richards to arbitrate her claims.”
(Pl’s. Mem. 4, ECF No. 9). Courts that have had occasion to consider 15 U.S.C. §
1639c(e) have done so in the context of whether that provision applies retroactively.
See Weller, 971 F. Supp. 2d at 1077-79; State ex rel. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v.
Webster, 752 S.E. 2d 372, 379-86 (W. Va. 2013). In both cases, the court decided
that § 1639c could not be applied retroactively to arbitration agreements entered
into before the Dodd-Frank Act became effective in 2010. See Weller, 971 F. Supp.
2d at 1079; Ocwen, 752 S.E. 2d at 386. Thus, neither court reached the issue
currently before this Court. The subject loan was executed in 2012, after the Dodd-
Frank Act became effective, so retroactivity is not an issue.
2 Tower does not
address § 1639c(e) in its Motion to compel arbitration or in the supporting
memorandum brief. Neither has Tower responded to Richards’ argument
concerning the effect of § 1639c(e) on the arbitration agreement here. Therefore,
the Court must determine whether Richards has carried her burden to show that
Congress intended § 1639c to preclude arbitration of the claims in this action. See
D.R. Horton, 737 F.3d at 360.
As recognized by the Fifth Circuit, “[t]he task of statutory interpretation
begins and, if possible, ends with the language of the statute.” Trout Point Lodge,
Ltd. v. Handshoe, 729 F.3d 481, 486 (5th Cir. 2013). “[C]ourts must presume that a
legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says
there.” Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54 (1992). “An express
statutory exclusion of pre-dispute arbitration undoubtedly constitutes a clear
2 Even so, “[a] refinancing is a new transaction requiring new disclosures to the consumer.” 12 C.F.R. § 226.20. Further, Tower does not dispute that the subject loan was entered into in 2012, and has attached parts of that loan to its Motion.
congressional command.” Jackson v. Home Team Pest Defense, Inc., 2013 WL
6051391, at *8 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 15, 2013); see also Stewart v. Doral Fin. Corp., 997
F. Supp. 2d 129, 139-40 (D.P.R. 2014) (interpreting another provision of the Dodd-
Frank Act and finding that the provision’s prohibition of pre-dispute arbitration
agreements precluded arbitration) (denying motion to compel arbitration).
In analyzing the text of § 1639c, the Court is cognizant of the federal policy
favoring arbitration and of the mandate to resolve doubts in favor of arbitration.
Even so, the Court agrees that the language of § 1639c(e) “leaves no doubt with
respect to one type of arbitration agreement as it explicitly bars the use of pre-
dispute arbitration in consumer mortgages.” See Alan. S. Kaplinsky, Mark J.
Levin, Martin C. Bryce, Jr., Arbitration Developments: Has the Supreme Court
Finally Stepped In?, 66 Bus. Law. 529, 538 (2011); see also, e.g., Todd Zywicki, The
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Savior or Menace?, 81 Geo. Wash. L. Rev.
856, 907 (2013) (recognizing that “Dodd-Frank bans mandatory arbitration
provisions in mortgage and home equity loan contracts”).
3 Since there is no dispute
that Richards’ loan with Tower was a residential mortgage loan secured by her
principal dwelling and that all of her claims arise out of that transaction, the Court
finds that 15 U.S.C. § 1639c(e) prohibits mandatory arbitration of the claims in this
3 See also Loan Originator Compensation Requirements Under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z), 78 FR 11280-01. Dodd-Frank Act section 1414(a) amended TILA to add new section 129C(e), 15 U.S.C. 1639c(e). That section restricts mandatory arbitration agreements in residential mortgage loans and extensions of open-end credit secured by the consumer's principal dwelling. It also prohibits provisions of these loans and related agreements from being applied or interpreted to bar a consumer from bringing a Federal claim in court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the [3] Motion to
Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration filed by Defendant
Tower Loan of Mississippi, LLC, is DENIED.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 29
day of January, 2015.
s/ Louis Guirola, Jr.
Wahrheit im Kreditgesetz
Dokumente ähnlich wie Richards v. Tower Loan
Rey John Rosario Pedralvez
DarrenBagertProductionsLLCvsPLFX
Draft Indonesia BIT
2018 Accord Full Text
AMEX Business Gift Card CHA
Arbitration open book.docx
Mehr von Steve Quinlivan
Sandy Hook Parents Brief in Support of Trinity Wall Street
Conflict Minerals Decision
Order Scheduling Hearing for Preliminary Injunction
Order Enjoining Duka Case
Briefing Schedule for Regulation A+ Challenge
Lutzeier v Citigroup
Plaintiff's Filing in Hill Case
Optional Provisions for Operating Agreements Under the Minensota Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act
SEC Filing in Hill Case
Court Enjoins Proceeding by an SEC Adminstrative Law Judge
Securities Law Professors Brief in Support of Trinity Wall Street
Trinity Wall Street Brief
Kraft Moves to Dismiss CFTC Manipulation Case
Galvin.v.sec US Court of Appeals
Kshetrapal v Dish Network
Montana Scheduling Order
Montana Petition for Review
Member-Managed Form of Operating Agreement for the Minnesota Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act
Murray v UBS No 2
Clerks Order Galvin v SEC
Spoofing Opinion
Cover Letter Form Romania
retiredlittchr
Qas i Daal Muhammad i Ya
Managerial Softskills
How to Install Hyperledger Fabric on Ubuntu - TechRepublic
shannhui
Charlotte Delbo Essay
Business Details of TREEBO FRANCISE
Amirul Mostafa Arefeen
Fundamentals Of Management 8th Edition - Chapter 1 Test Bank
Bea Bombales
Lancet Editorial on Kashmir
OrgB Final Notes
Government Bond Futures (Nasdaq)