|
|
|
Court: Families cannot sue over loan discount fee
Law Firm Legal News |
2012/05/24 16:04
|
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that three families cannot sue a mortgage company for allegedly charging them a loan discount fee without giving them a lower interest rate.
The high court's decision tosses out lawsuits filed in 2008 against Quicken Loans, Inc., in Louisiana by three families who claimed they paid the fees without receiving anything in return. The Freeman family paid $980 and the Bennett family $1,100 in loan discount fees but allegedly did not get lower interest rates in return. The Smith family allegations focus partly on a loan origination fee of $5,100, which they claim was a mislabeled loan discount fee.
A federal judge threw the lawsuit out, saying the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act made the lawsuit improper. That decision, which was upheld by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, was appealed to the Supreme Court.
The law says no person shall give and no person shall accept any portion, split, or percentage of any charge made or received for the rendering of a real estate settlement service in connection with a transaction involving a federally related mortgage loan other than for services actually performed.
The argument is over whether that law prohibits the collection of an unearned charge by a single settlement provider, or whether it covers only transactions in which a provider shares part of a settlement-service charge with one or more other persons who did nothing to earn it, said Justice Antonia Scalia, who wrote the opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top Pa. judge charged with campaign corruption
Trending Legal Issues |
2012/05/19 22:32
|
State Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie Melvin was charged Friday with illegally using her taxpayer-funded staff in her campaigns for a seat on the state's highest court in a scheme that ensnared her sister, a senator awaiting sentencing on similar charges.
Orie Melvin said outside court that she will vigorously defend herself against the nine criminal charges, which a grand jury report called a tale of corruption that she actively condoned and even promoted.
I am a woman of faith, Orie Melvin said. My faith will see me through this. And I will not resign because of these politically motivated charges.
The high court relieved her of judicial and administrative duties Friday, but she remains a Supreme Court justice, on the payroll with a $195,000 salary and full benefits. The court also ordered Orie Melvin's Pittsburgh office sealed to secure records, files and equipment that are property of the court.
The charges come two months after her sister Republican state Sen. Jane Orie was convicted of 14 counts of theft of services, conflict of interest and forgery charges. Orie is scheduled to be sentenced in June, and her attorney has said in court filings that she will resign before then.
The grand jury report said Orie Melvin and her staff used personal email accounts to shield the actual email addresses that generated the messages, hiding the fact that political activities were being handled by the staffers while they were on the state payroll. Orie Melvin also used her state-paid telephone line to solicit support from hundreds of Republican committee members around the state, the report said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court upholds key voting rights provision
Court and Trial |
2012/05/18 22:32
|
A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a key provision of the Voting Rights Act, rejecting an Alabama county's challenge to the landmark civil rights law.
The provision requires state, county and local governments with a history of discrimination to obtain advance approval from the Justice Department, or from a federal court in Washington, for any changes to election procedures. It now applies to all or parts of 16 states.
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said that Congress developed extensive evidence of continuing racial discrimination just six years ago and reached a reasonable conclusion when it reauthorized section 5 of the law at that time.
The appellate ruling could clear the way for the case to be appealed to the Supreme Court where Chief Justice John Roberts suggested in a 2009 opinion that the court's conservative majority might be receptive to a challenge to section 5.
Judge David Tatel wrote for the Court of Appeals majority that the court owes deference to Congress' judgment on the matter. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas high court orders state to pay ex-inmate $2M
Law Firm Legal News |
2012/05/18 22:32
|
The Texas Supreme Court ordered the state Friday to pay about $2 million to an ex-inmate who spent 26 years in prison for murder before his conviction was overturned, a decision legal experts said could set a new standard for when ex-prisoners should be compensated.
Texas has paid nearly $50 million to former inmates who have been cleared. But state Comptroller Susan Combs had resisted paying Billy Frederick Allen, arguing that his conviction was overturned because he had ineffective lawyers, not because he had proven his innocence.
The state Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Dale Wainwright, disagreed, saying the state's criminal courts had shown Allen had a legitimate innocence claim and he should be paid.
Jeff Blackburn, chief counsel of the Innocence Project of Texas, which works to free wrongfully convicted inmates, said Friday's ruling could open the door for more compensation claims from ex-prisoners.
The floodgates are not opening, but what this will do is give a fair shake to people who are innocent, Blackburn said. This is a major step forward in terms of opening up and broadening the law of exoneration in general.
Texas' compensation law is the most generous in the U.S., according to the national Innocence Project. Freed inmates who are declared innocent by a judge, prosecutors or a governor's pardon can collect $80,000 for every year of imprisonment, along with an annuity. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court rules NY town's prayer violated Constitution
Attorney Legal Opinions |
2012/05/17 22:33
|
An upstate New York town violated the constitutional ban against favoring one religion over another by opening nearly every meeting over an 11-year span with prayers that stressed Christianity, a federal court of appeals ruled Thursday.
In what it said was its first case testing the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled the town of Greece, a suburb of Rochester, should have made a greater effort to invite people from other faiths to open monthly meetings. The town's lawyer says it will appeal.
From 1999 through 2007, and again from January 2009 through June 2010, every meeting was opened with a Christian-oriented invocation. In 2008, after residents Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens complained, four of 12 meetings were opened by non-Christians, including a Jewish layman, a Wiccan priestess and the chairman of the local Baha'i congregation.
Galloway and Stephens sued and, in 2010, a lower court ruled there was no evidence the town had intentionally excluded other faiths.
A town employee each month selected clerics or lay people by using a local published guide of churches. The guide did not include non-Christian denominations, however. The court found that religious institutions in the town of just under 100,000 people are primarily Christian, and even Galloway and Stephens testified they knew of no non-Christian places of worship there. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News World RSS Feed
