Whitley Case 607 F Supp 2d 885 Denial of Motion to Dismiss

Whitley 3rd amended Complaint

Whitley order on mtd Taylor Bean

Thanks everyone for sending me the full text OF THE OPINION.  VERY IMPORTANT CASE. Appraisal fraud, negligence, fiduciary duty, traced up to Taylor Bean. The reasoning in the opinion is at treatise-level. This Illinois Case and the cases it cites opens the door for traveling upstream in the securitization chain to recover all undsiclosed, hidden profits. It also contains some cautionary findings about alleging fraud against a group of defendants, about tolling, and other pertinent topics.

WHITLEY v. TAYLOR BEAN & WHITACKER MORTGAGE CORP. (N.D.Ill. 4-20-2009)
No. 08 C 3114.
April 20, 2009

Ida Mae Whitley (“Mrs. Whitley”), Clyde Whitley (“Mr. Whitley”), and their adult daughter Kenna Whitley (“Kenna”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) bring this action against Taylor, Bean & Whitacker Mortgage Corp. (“TB & W”), Advance Lending Group, Corp. (“Advance Lending”), Blue Horizon Real Estate Corp. (“Blue Horizon”), Oswald Ochoa (“Ochoa”), John Frey Ospina (“Ospina”), Anita Logan (“Logan”) and Favian Cardenas (“Cardenas”) (collectively “Defendants”) alleging violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1679b (“CROA”), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq (“RESPA”), the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3605 (“FHA”), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691 (“ECOA”), and the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, along with various state law violations. (R. 19, Am. Compl.) Currently before the Court are four motions to dismiss filed by Logan (R. 35), TB & W (R. 38), Advance Lending, Ochoa, and Ospina (“Advance Lending Defendants”) (R. 42), and Blue Horizon and Cardenas (R. 46). For the reasons stated below, the motions to dismiss are denied in part and granted in part.

2 Responses

  1. Ken: Thanks so much

  2. Neil,

    I emailed you the full Whitley Opinion on Thursday. Check your e-mail.

    Ken

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: