Opinion ID: 182516
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denials of Credit Applications

Text: While the issues with plaintiffs’ mortgage were still ongoing, they applied for four home equity lines of credit, three with LaSalle Bank and one with Quicken Loans. Plaintiff Morris also applied for a business loan with First American Bank. Each of these applications was denied. In response to the plaintiffs’ contentions that they were denied loans and credit lines as a result of GMAC Mortgage’s actions, GMAC Mortgage counters that no admissible facts support the plaintiffs’ claim that they were denied credit as a result of GMAC Mortgage’s report of negative information to the credit bureaus. A representative of LaSalle Bank testified that the bank’s decisions to deny the plaintiffs’ applications of December 1, 2004, March 7, 2005, and October 14, 2005 would have been no different regardless of the issues between 7 The plaintiffs offer no response to GMAC Mortgage’s argument that their damages claims relating to loans made by plaintiff Morris’s mother should be dismissed. Accordingly, that damages theory is not available on remand. 36 No. 09-2182 RBC, GMAC Mortgage, and the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs presented contrary evidence. Morris testified that a LaSalle Bank loan officer told her that the plaintiffs’ homeequity loan applications would not be approved until their foreclosure was removed. GMAC Mortgage argues that the plaintiffs’ evidence about what the LaSalle Bank loan officer said is not sufficient to avoid summary judgment because it is “classic” hearsay. We disagree. Hearsay, of course, is “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). The loan officer’s statement to Morris was not hearsay. It was not an assertion of a factual matter but a statement describing the bank’s collective intentions: we won’t approve a loan until you get the foreclosure issue resolved. There is also an exception to the exclusion of hearsay for “a statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental feeling, pain, and bodily health).” Fed. R. Evid. 803(3); see Citizens Financial Group, Inc. v. Citizens National Bank, 383 F.3d 110, 133 (3d Cir. 2004) (bank tellers’ statements regarding their personal experiences with certain customers were not hearsay because the tellers described the actions they took with regard to those customers and why); United States v. Heath, 970 F.2d 1397, 1404 (5th Cir. 1992) (statement by vice president and loan officer of bank that he was concerned a loan was a sham was not hearsay; his statement was offered not to show that the loan was a sham but to reveal whether the loan had aroused the witness’s suspicions and whether No. 09-2182 37 the witness had notified any other bank officer about it); United States v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 2007 WL 1741885, at  (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2007) (statements of bank employees regarding the banks’ reasons for dealing with one supplier rather than another were not hearsay). Also, because the loan officer was speaking during the employment relationship concerning matters within the scope of her employment, her statement may be imputed to the bank. Thus, the LaSalle loan officer’s statements to plaintiff Morris about the need to resolve the mortgage problem were expressions of the intentions of the bank made by its representative. The statements fall outside the definition of hearsay, and even if they amounted to hearsay, the Rule 803(3) hearsay exception would apply. The testimony from Morris about the bank representative’s statements is admissible. The evidence presented by the parties presents a disputed issue of material fact that bars summary judgment on this issue. The plaintiffs also applied for a fourth home equity loan with Quicken Loans in October 2005. The denial letter informed them that their application was rejected because of their poor credit scores. GMAC Mortgage argues that the denial of this loan cannot be attributed to its conduct because a different lender pulled the plaintiffs’ credit report on the same day that Quicken did, and the report relied on by the other lender showed only positive information being reported by GMAC Mortgage on that date. However, without additional evidence to connect the dots, there is no way to conclude beyond 38 No. 09-2182 reasonable dispute that Quicken did not rely on the negative and erroneous credit information that GMAC Mortgage had reported to the credit bureaus only five months earlier. GMAC Mortgage’s unbolstered assumption is speculative and insufficient to support summary judgment. The plaintiffs support their claim that Morris was denied a business loan through First American Bank due to GMAC Mortgage’s actions with an email sent by a representative of the bank to a First American loan officer expressing concern regarding Morris’s “mortgage situation.” 8 GMAC Mortgage argues that the representative who sent that email later testified that Morris’s application was denied for reasons having nothing to do with GMAC Mortgage. GMAC Mortgage’s argu- ment goes to weight, not admissibility, and does not resolve this dispute of material fact. Taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, a reasonable jury could conclude that GMAC Mortgage’s actions resulted in 8 The plaintiffs also argue that a “former” First American loan officer told Morris that her business loan was denied due to the foreclosure. Although the plaintiffs disclosed this former First American loan officer to GMAC Mortgage as a potential witness, neither Morris’s deposition testimony nor any other evidence in the record supports the plaintiffs’ assertion of this statement. Even assuming that the loan officer made this statement to plaintiff Morris, there is no indication that she made the statement during the time she was an agent of the bank, so the statement has not been shown to be admissible. No. 09-2182 39 plaintiff Morris’s business loan application being denied.9