McFarland v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
810 F.3d 273 (2016)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Phillip McFarland (plaintiff) refinanced his home in a very good housing market. After the housing market collapsed, McFarland’s refinanced loan was more than his house was worth. McFarland was unable to keep up with payments, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (defendant) commenced foreclosure proceedings. McFarland sued Wells Fargo, alleging that the refinancing contract was void because it was unconscionable. McFarland claimed both that the contract itself was unconscionable and that the contract was unconscionably induced on account of an inflated appraisal of his home’s value. The district court found that a loan amount in excess of the home’s value was not, without more, substantively unconscionable and that claims of unconscionability and unconscionable inducement required substantive unconscionability. The court thus dismissed McFarland’s complaints. McFarland appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Harris, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 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.