Hubbard

Hubbard v. Fidelity Federal Bank

Good Law
91 F.3d 75·96 Daily Journal DAR 8958·1996 WL 413757·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 18303·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5478
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 25, 1996No. 93-56052California2,071 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Monica Hubbard and Earle and Nieette Humphreys appeal a grant of summary judgment in their breach of contract, fraud, and Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) class action against Fidelity Federal Bank. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

I.

In November, 1983, Hubbard obtained a $94,000 adjustable-rate mortgage loan from Fidelity Federal Bank. The interest rate was to be adjusted semi-annually, on June 1 and December 1, based on “the most recent” monthly weighted costs of savings, borrowings and advances by the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco to the 11th District members of the bank. Payment amounts were to be adjusted only once a year, on January 1. Fidelity agreed to provide “notice of an adjustment to the payment amount at least 30 but not more than 45 days before it becomes effective.”

For the first two years, Fidelity sent Hubbard payment adjustment notices approximately 35 days before January 1, the date fixed by the contract for changes in the amount of the payment. After two years, Fidelity changed this practice, and sent Hubbard payment adjustment notices approximately 65, rather than 35, days prior to January 1. On August 22, 1991, Fidelity wrote Hubbard,…

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.