![]() The representative did not verify Plaintiffs' ability to repay their mortgage loan at its original rate or at the rate that would take effect upon refinancing. After an initial screening interview, a First Ohio representative told Plaintiffs they could obtain $75,000 in equity from their refinance. First Ohio was not deterred and agreed to assist Plaintiffs. Several lenders declined to assist Plaintiffs because of their lack of home equity, lack of credit, and imbalanced debt to income ratio. In 2005, Plaintiffs contacted several potential lenders to discuss the possibility of refinancing their home mortgage to pay for home improvements. ![]() ("EMC") is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Texas and the subsequent assignee of Plaintiffs' mortgage loan. This case arises from the efforts of Plaintiffs Timothy and Susan Barry to refinance the mortgage on their Maryland home.ĭefendant First Ohio Banc and Lending ("First Ohio") is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in Ohio and the original lender for Plaintiffs' mortgage refinance. For the reasons that follow, Defendant EMC Mortgage Corp.'s motion for a more definite statement will be denied, Defendant EMC Mortgage Corp.'s motion to dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part, and Defendant First Ohio Banc and Lending's motion to dismiss will be granted. The issues are fully briefed and the court now rules pursuant to Local Rule 105.6, no hearing being deemed necessary. 6) and the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant First Ohio Banc and Lending (ECF No. Presently pending and ready for review is the motion for a more definite statement of claim and to dismiss filed by Defendant EMC Mortgage Corp. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |