Smith v. Home Loan Funding, Inc.

Good Law
121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 857·192 Cal. App. 4th 1331·2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 206
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 24, 2011No. B219372California2,563 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

The mortgage lender who also acts as a mortgage broker must keep in mind the differences between the two when speaking to a prospective client. A mortgage broker has a fiduciary duty to a borrower. A mortgage lender does not. This case teaches that a mortgage lender should take care not to convey to a prospective client that it is acting as a broker when in fact it is acting as a lender.

A mortgage broker appeals a judgment awarding damages against it for breach of fiduciary duty and misrepresentation. The broker contends there is no substantial evidence it acted as a broker, the amount of damages awarded is excessive, and there is no basis for an award of attorney fees. We modify *1333 the damage award by eliminating damages awarded for a prepayment penalty. Such damages are inconsistent with an award of damages based on an interest differential over the 30-year term of the loan. We remand to the trial court for a recalculation of prejudgment interest based on the reduced damage award. In all other respects, we affirm.

FACTS

Home Loan Funding, Inc. (HLF), was a California corporation that provided lending services for residential mortgages. It funded most…

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.