Holbert

Holbert v. Fremont Investment & Loan

Good Law
102 Cal. Rptr. 3d 370·179 Cal. App. 4th 1067·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1905
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 30, 2009C058026California4,024 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hull, J.

Plaintiff Carolyn Holbert appeals from a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment of defendant Fremont Reorganization Corporation, formerly known as Fremont Investment & Loan (Fremont). Plaintiff contends issues of fact remain on her claims for violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq.) (TILA),-as amended by the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 ( 15 U.S.C. §§ 1602 (aa), 1639) (HOEPA), unfair business practices and financial elder abuse stemming from a home loan issued to plaintiff by Fremont.

We conclude Fremont was not required to comply with HOEPA, which applies when the finance charges imposed on a loan exceed a certain threshold. We conclude two charges imposed on plaintiff, one to pay off a preexisting debt to another lender and another to satisfy a prepayment penalty on a prior home loan, were not finance charges within the meaning of HOEPA.

We further conclude plaintiff has not established a claim against Fremont for unfair business practices. While unfair business practices may include both unlawful and unfair acts, the complaint in this matter alleges only unlawful…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.