United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division
ORDER AND OPINION
these consolidated actions, Plaintiffs Thelma Boone and Vance
L. Boone (together “Plaintiffs”) filed the
above-captioned actions 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.
T. Boone v. Quicken Loans, Inc., C/A No.
5:15-cv-04772-JMC, ECF No. 1-1 at 9 ¶¶ 8-13 (D.S.C.
Nov. 30, 2015) (“Boone 1”); V. Boone
v. Quicken Loans, Inc., C/A No. 5:15-cv-04843-JMC, ECF
No. 1-1 at 10 ¶¶ 8-13 (D.S.C. Dec. 4, 2015)
matter is before the court on Plaintiffs' Motions to
Alter or Amend Judgment pursuant to Rules 52(b) and 59(e) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 156
(Boone 1); ECF No. 153 (Boone 2).)
Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to alter or amend the Orders
entered on February 9, 2018 (ECF No. 154 (Boone 1);
ECF No. 151 (Boone 2)) (the “February
Orders”), in which the court granted Quicken Loans'
Motions for Summary Judgment and denied Plaintiffs'
Motions for Summary Judgment. (ECF Nos. 88, 91
(Boone 1); ECF Nos. 86, 89 (Boone 2).)
Quicken Loans opposes Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or
Amend asserting that they should be denied. (ECF No. 157 at 2
(Boone 1); ECF No. 154 at 2 (Boone 2).) For
the reasons set forth below, the court
DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or
RELEVANT BACKGROUND TO PENDING MOTION
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.
about September 13, 2012, Thelma Boone provided information
by telephone to Quicken Loans' mortgage banker for
purposes of completing a loan application to refinance the
mortgage on Plaintiffs' residence located at 226 River
Drive, Rowesville, South Carolina. (ECF No. 88-5 at 3
¶¶ 4-5 (Boone 1); ECF No. 86-5 at 3
¶¶ 4-5 (Boone 2).) As a result of the
information provided by Thelma Boone, Quicken Loans generated
loan application documents that were sent to Plaintiffs to
review and sign. (Id.) 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 13 (Boone 1); ECF No. 1-1 at 14
(Boone 2).) Based on the information provided by
Thelma Boone, Quicken Loans sent Plaintiffs an AIPC that was
prepopulated with the following relevant information (in
(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
(a) I select I/We will not use the services of legal
_____________Borrower Vance L. Boone Date
_____________Borrower Thelma Boone 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
(ECF No. 1-1 at 13 (Boone 1); ECF No. 1-1 at 14
September 17 and 18, 2012, Plaintiffs signed the loan
application documents and the AIPC. (ECF No. 88-5 at 3 ¶
6 (Boone 1); ECF No. 86-5 at 3 ¶ 6
(Boone 2).) Plaintiffs then sent the signed loan
application documents to Quicken Loans by telefax on
September 17, 2012, and the AIPC to Quicken Loans on
September 19, 2012. (ECF Nos. 1-1 at 13 & 88-7
(Boone 1); ECF Nos. 1-1 at 14 & 86-7
(Boone 1).) On October 19, 2012, Thelma Boone 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. 88-5 at 3-4
¶ 7 (Boone 1); ECF No. 86-5 at 3- 4 ¶ 7
(Boone 1).) On October 25, 2012, Plaintiffs met with
attorney Justin Tapp of McDonnell & Associates, P.A. and
signed a disclosure form agreeing to the terms of McDonnell
& Associates' representation at the loan closing.