Plaintiff, an African-American, applied for a construction loan from Defendant-lender. Defendant denied the loan, purportedly because of Defendant's credit history. Plaintiff reapplied for a loan from Defendant and received it. Plaintiff subsequently filed suit on February 21, 1997, in the U.S. ...
read more >
Plaintiff, an African-American, applied for a construction loan from Defendant-lender. Defendant denied the loan, purportedly because of Defendant's credit history. Plaintiff reapplied for a loan from Defendant and received it. Plaintiff subsequently filed suit on February 21, 1997, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleging that the Defendant's first rejection of the loan application was premised on redlining prohibited by the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619, and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691. The District Court granted in part the Defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that the Plaintiff had failed to produce evidence that the Defendant approved loan applications filed by similarly situated white borrowers. However, the District Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss an ECOA-based count alleging that the Defendant had failed to provide the Plaintiff with proper notice concerning the reasons why the first loan was rejected. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court's partial grant of summary judgment on April 4, 2004. Hood v. Midwest Sav. Bank, 95 Fed. Appx. 768 (6th Cir. 2004).
Plaintiff refilled his Complaint on June 7, 2004, alleging violations of the ECOA and Ohio Revised Code § 4112.021, based on Defendant's failure to provide Plaintiff with required information when rejecting his first loan application. U.S. District Court Judge John D. Holschuh denied the Defendant's motion for summary judgment with respect to the ECOA claim on December 16, 2005, finding that a reasonable jury could conclude that Plaintiff had suffered emotional injuries as a result of Defendant-bank's failure to comply with the notification provisions of the ECOA. Judge Holschuh granted the Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the state law claim, however, finding that it was barred by claim preclusion since the Plaintiff had not included it in his original Complaint.
On April 20, 2006, the District Court dismissed the ECOA claim with the consent of both parties.
We have no further information about this case.
Andrew Nash - 06/02/2008
compress summary
