Joshua Franco Professor Nanci Carr BLAW 481 Paul H. Cherry v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Group Issue: Can Chase Manhattan recover from Cherry for breaching the acceleration clause? Rules: • An acceleration clause: Is a provision in a mortgage that provides the lender to collect the entire amount that a debtor owes in debt if the debtor becomes late even if one payment is missed. • Breach refers to the failing of the duty of upholding a contract. • A loan reactivation letter is a document that is sent from the mortgage lendor that remedies the mortgage loan by reactivating it. • Biggs v. Smith, was a case that reached the conclusion that a recorded mortgage provides clear evidence of the debtors attempt at the eradication of the mortgage. …show more content…
• United Service Corp. v. Vi-An Const. Corp., was a court case that said that a Satisfaction of a Mortgage “made through a mistake may be canceled” and a mortgage becomes reestablished as long as no other innocent third parties have “acquired an interest in the property.” • “Inequitable result test” Rule# 5 5) where there was intent to make a timely payment, and it was attempted and or steps taken to accomplish a payment was made. Nonetheless the payment was not made due to a misunderstanding or excusable neglect, coupled with some conduct of the mortgagee which contributed to the failure to pay when the payment was due or within the grace period for when the payment was …show more content…
Cherry argues that these attempts would satisfy the Inequitable result test Factors 1-5 but, the one that applies would be #5. Factor #5 applies because there was an intent to make a timely payment and it was attempted or tried to have the payment accomplished without neglect. The payments were intended to all be in good faith towards the lender. Thus, factor number five creates enough of the limited circumstances for the court to decide on Cherry’s favor in order to deny the foreclosure. Since Cherry intent was to pay Chase and also attempted to make the mortgage payments to Chase on time this factor would qualify Cherry to be granted the denial of the foreclosure. In addition, Cherry claims that he attempted to make the payments, but was told by a representative of Chase that there was no mortgage loan number upon which to apply the payments. As a result, the mortgage payments were placed into an account and later into his counsel’s trust account as a mortgage escrow account. In the end Cherry did take steps to make mortgage payments and Chase’s erroneous letter of satisfaction of payment helps Cherry on the fifth factor of the inequitable test
Maria had spoken with Eva over the phone concerning the correct total amount of $60,000 for rendering decorating services provided by Eva. Maria had sent a letter of the telephone conversation stating that Eva agreed to take $60,000 in full satisfaction obligation under the contract. Although Eva, changed her mind when depositing the check in the bank, she legally entered a mutual agreement over the telephone where it resulted in a unliquidated debt, payment is lower than actual.
While the widely exposed and discussed trials of WorldCom's and Tyco's top executives were all over the media, one of the most interesting cases of securities fraud was happening without any public acknowledgement.
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
In Reyes v. Missouri Pac. R. CO., the appellant, Joel Reyes, sought rehabilitation from the defendant, Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, after being run over by one of the defendants trains while lying on the tracks. The appellant claims the defendant was negligent due to its inability to see the plaintiff in time to stop the train. The defendant refutes the plaintiffs claim by blaming the plaintiff for contributory negligence because the plaintiff was believed to be drunk on the night in question based off of pass arrest records . In a motion in limine Reyes ask for the exclusion of the evidence presented by the defense. The trial court, however denied the plaintiff’s request and ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff, Reyes,
Case name: Peter K. Dementas v The Estate of Jack Tallas, 764 P.2d 628 (1988)
In the case of McKinley v. City of Mansfield, 404 F.3d 418 (2005), there was an internal investigation of the police department of “improper use of police scanners to eavesdrop on cordless phones and cellphones” (Diagle, 2012 para.10), which involved many officers. Police officer McKinley was interviewed two times. The first time McKinley was interviewed it was about the investigation, and the second time was about allegations that he was untruthful during the first interview, both times he was questioned he was under the Garrity Warnings. By the time of the second interview, McKinley was already “under criminal investigation for lying” (Diagle, 2012, para. 10), and during the second interview it was made clear to McKinley that it was about
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
FACTS= On September 24, 1987, Keith Jacobson was indicted on charges of violating a provision of the Child Protection Act of 1984, which criminalizes the knowing receipt through mail of a “visual depiction [that] involves the use of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct.” On Feb 1984 Jacobson ordered two magazines in the mail of young boys. The magazines entitled Bare Boys 1 and Bare Boys 2, contained material of nude young boys from preteen to teens. Jacobson claimed that he want to order material of 18 year olds and up. However Jacobson’s receipt of the magazines was legal under both federal and Nebraska laws. Laws were constructed three months after the order was filled that banned all sexual depictions of children. Soon after the Gov. started setting up Jacobson by sending him applications to phony organizations that were illegally based.
Gummow and Bell JJ concluded that clause 1 of the Deed signed Rural’s debts and its interests under the loan agreements to Equuscorp. Their Honours observed that the phrase “other remedies for these matters” located in clause 2 assigned a claim in restitution for money had and received . Heydon J agreed with this decision on similar grounds .
Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2011, January 15). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved February 4, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
The litigation of R. v. Buhay is a case where the Charter of rights and freedoms was violated by the policing parties but maintained and performed by the Supreme Court of Canada. This litigation began after two individuals; of which one was Mervyn Buhay, rented a locker at the Winnipeg bus depot. Buhay began to distract the security guards while his friend placed a duffel bag in the locker they had rented. After they left, the security guards were so engrossed by the smell coming from the locker that they unlocked it to find a sleeping bag full of marijuana in the duffel bag. Buhay was arrested the day after the bag was taken into possession even though no warrant was received to search the locker in the first place. During the first trial, due to the violation of the Charter by the police officers, Buhay was acquitted. The Crown, however, appealed this ruling and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of Canada where once again Buhay was acquitted in a 9-0 ruling. Although Buhay committed a crime by possessing marijuana, the police violated the Charter by searching Buhay`s locker without a warrant or his consent, making the Supreme court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay reasonable. The Supreme Court of Canada`s decision to acquit Buhay was reasonable due to the fact that the police violated the Charter of rights, no warrant was received to unlock the locker let alone seize the duffel bag, and lastly because the bus depots terms for the locker were not efficiently provided to the customers making them aware of any reasonable search conduct.
Dred Scott, an African American man who was born into slavery, wanted what all slaves would have wanted, their freedom. They were mistreated, neglected, and treated not as humans, but as property. In 1852, Dred Scott sued his current owner, Sanford, about him, no longer being a slave, but a free man (Oyez 1). In Article four of the Constitution, it states that any slave, who set foot in a free land, makes them a free man. This controversy led to the ruling of the state courts and in the end, came to the final word of the Supreme Court. Is he a slave or a free man?
House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case, which originated out of a Tennessee trial court murder conviction and death sentence (Neubauer & Fradella, 2008). The case started with the murder of Carolyn Muncey late on the night of July 14, 1985, or in the early morning hours of July 15, 1985. Muncey disappeared from her home, and was found dead the next day, with her body having been dumped down an embankment and covered with brush and limbs. The defendant, Paul Gregory House, was seen in the area of the body dump site, on July 15, 1985, carrying a black rag, and reportedly coming up the embankment, in the area where Muncey’s body was later located (House v. Bell, 2006). Evidence collected from the body of
Mortgage loans are a substantial form of revenue for the financial industry. Mortgage loans generate billions of dollars in the financial industry. It is no secret that companies have the ability to make a lot of money by offering a variety of mortgage loan products. The problem was not mortgage loans but that mortgage companies were using unethical behavior to get consumer mortgage loans approved. Unfortunately, the Countrywide Financial case was not an isolated case. Many top name mortgage companies have been guilty of unethical behavior. Just as the American housing market was starting to recover from its worst battering since the Great Depression, a new scandal, an epidemic of flawed or fraudulent mortgage documents, threatens to send not just the housing market but the entire economy back into a tailspin (Nation, 2010).
In this case, the Respondent was working as the Superintendent of Central Excise. He was subjected to a punishment of withholding 50% of the pension and 50% of his gratuity. A writ petition was filed in the High Court which was later moved to the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal held the punishment to be too severe. Again an appeal was made to the Supreme Court. The Court set aside the order of the Tribunal saying that the original punishment was not found to be too severe when the Wednesbury Test was applied to it and hence, it was rational and reasonable. This Court observed that: