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.

Hosey v. Quicken Loans Inc.

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

March 26, 2018

Lonnie Hosey, Plaintiff,
v.
Quicken Loans, Inc., Defendant.

          ORDER AND OPINION

         Plaintiff Lonnie Hosey 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), and unconscionable conduct in the context of a mortgage loan closing. (ECF No. 1-1 at 5 ¶ 5-6 ¶ 11.)

         This matter is before the court on Quicken Loans' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 4.) Hosey opposes the Motion to Dismiss in its entirety. (ECF No. 28.) For the reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Quicken Loans' Motion to Dismiss.

         I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND OF PENDING MOTION

         Defendant 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 July 7, 2014, Hosey executed a note for a loan of $104, 500.00 that he received from Quicken Loans, which was secured by a mortgage on Hosey's residence located at 286 Allen Street, Barnwell, South Carolina. (ECF Nos. 4-2 & 4-3.) “The Note had a fixed interest rate of 4.99%, a thirty-year term, and monthly principal and interest payments of $560.35.” (ECF No. 4 at 2 (referencing ECF No. 4-3).) As part of the loan application package, Quicken Loans included an Attorney/Insurance Preference Checklist (the “AIPC”), which document contains 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.
Lonnie Hosey
Electronically Signed on 5/7/2014 9:32:15 PM
Borrower Lonnie Hosey 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 ...


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.