Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mosley v. Quicken Loans, Inc.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Aiken Division

March 9, 2018

Tyrone Mosley, Plaintiff,
v.
Quicken Loans, Inc., Defendant.

          ORDER AND OPINION

         Plaintiff Tyrone Mosley filed the above-captioned action against Defendant Quicken Loans, Inc. alleging claims for violation of the South Carolina Attorney Preference Statute (“SCAPS”), SC Code § 37-10-102 (2017), in the context of a mortgage loan closing. (ECF No. 1-1 at 7 ¶ 5-8 ¶ 12.)

         This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's and Quicken Loans' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF Nos. 71, 74.) The parties oppose each other's Motions respectively. (ECF Nos. 82, 87.) For the reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS Quicken Loans' Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment.

         I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND TO PENDING MOTIONS

         Quicken Loans “is a nationwide online mortgage lender that provides, among other things, residential mortgage loan refinances.” Boone v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 803 S.E.2d 707, 709 (S.C. 2017). “Under the Quicken Loans refinance procedure, the borrowers have already purchased the property and are simply seeking a new mortgage loan (presumably with more favorable terms) to replace the existing loan.” Id.

         On January 23, 2013, Plaintiff provided information to Quicken Loans for purposes of completing a loan application to refinance the mortgage on his primary residence located at 225 Bennett Street, Williston, South Carolina 29853.[1] (ECF Nos. 71-1 at 11:6-22, 71-3 at 2 & 71-5 at 3 ¶ 5.) As a result of the information provided by Plaintiff, Defendant generated loan application documents that were made available to Plaintiff via Quicken Loans' internet web portal. (ECF No. 71-5 at 3 ¶ 5.) In addition to the loan application package, Quicken Loans included an Attorney/Insurance Preference Checklist (the “AIPC”). (Id.; see also ECF No. 1-1 at 8 ¶ 11.) Based on the information provided by Plaintiff, the AIPC was prepopulated with the following relevant information (in bold):

         1. I (We) have been informed by the lender that I (we) have a right to select legal counsel to represent me(us) in all matters of this transaction relating to the closing of this loan.

(a) I select I/We will not use the services of legal counsel.
s/Tyrone Mosley
Electronically signed on 1/23/2013 4:15:46 PM
Borrower Tyrone Mosley Date Borrower Date
Borrower Date Borrower Date
(b) Having been informed of this right, and having no preference, I asked for assistance from the lender and was referred to a list of acceptable attorneys. From that list I select
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Borrower Date Borrower Date
Not Applicable Not Applicable
Borrower Date Borrower Date

         (ECF No. 71-6 at 2.)

         On January 23, 2013, Plaintiff electronically signed the loan application documents and the AIPC and transmitted them to Quicken Loans via its internet web portal. (Id.; see also ECF No. 71-5 at 3 ¶ 6.) On April 1, 2013, Plaintiff had a telephone conversation with a Quicken Loans' representative to discuss the details of the loan closing, including who would be in attendance. (ECF No. 71-5 at 3 ¶ 7.) Thereafter, Plaintiff was contacted by attorney Stacey E. (Pope) Besser (“Besser”) and they discussed issues relevant to the closing. (ECF No. 71-8 at 3 ¶ 6.) On April 5, 2013, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.