From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...
Associates Home Equity Services, Inc. v. Troup
Superior Court of New Jersey
778 A.2d 529 (2001)
In 1996, Beatrice Troup and her son Curtis Troup (plaintiffs), African Americans living in Newark, New Jersey, obtained a $46,500 mortgage from East Coast Mortgage Corporation (ECM) (defendant) for home repairs to be made by a company owned by Gary Wishnia (defendant). ECM charged the Troups an interest rate of 11.65 percent and a fee equal to 4 percent (4 points) of the loan. ECM assigned the mortgage to Associates Home Equity Services, Inc. (Associates) (defendant). The mortgage did not include a warning required by federal law in consumer-sales contracts (the Holder Rule). In 1998, the Troups defaulted on the loan, and Associates sued in foreclosure. The Troups counterclaimed against Associates and asserted third-party claims against ECM and Wishnia, alleging that all three defendants engaged in unfair, racially discriminatory, and predatory lending. Specifically, the Troups alleged that: (1) the terms of the mortgage were unconscionable, (2) various federal and state consumer fraud laws were violated, (3) ECM had violated the federal Holder Rule, and (4) ECM failed to properly notify the Troups of the three-day right to rescind under the Truth In Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1635. The trial court dismissed all claims asserted by the Troups and entered judgment of foreclosure to Associates. The court held that the terms of the mortgage were not unconscionable, the Holder Rule did not apply, ECM complied with TILA’s notice provisions, and the alleged federal and state law violations were barred by the two-year statutes of limitations. On appeal, the Troups claimed that the defendants had engaged in reverse redlining by targeting the Troups for predatory lending. (Redlining occurs when credit is denied based on demographics, and reverse redlining occurs when credit is extended but on unfavorable terms.) Though barred by the statutes of limitations, the Troups argued that the action should be permitted to proceed under the doctrine of equitable recoupment.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Havey, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 219,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.