Brophy v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Co.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
947 F. Supp. 879 (1996)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Donald and Joan Brophy (plaintiffs) applied for a residential mortgage from Chase Manhattan Mortgage Co. (Chase) (defendant). During the application process, the Brophys were given loan disclosures required by the Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z, including estimates of several fees related to the mortgage. When the Brophys settled their mortgage, the fees were higher than the estimated amounts. The Brophys filed a lawsuit in federal court against Chase, alleging that Chase violated the Truth in Lending Act and § 2604 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act by failing to provide a good-faith estimate of the fees. The Brophys argued that the discrepancies between the estimated fees and the final settlement fees indicated that Chase made its estimates in bad faith. Chase moved for summary judgment, arguing that it made good-faith estimates of mortgage fees as required by the Truth in Lending Act and that the Brophys did not have a cause of action under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act because § 2604, unlike other sections of that act, did not explicitly provide a private right of action for plaintiffs.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brody, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.