X hits on this document

PDF document

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA - page 7 / 38

81 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

7 / 38

The actual rate charged appears on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement that owners and/or

buyers of property sign at either a settlement when title to real estate is transferred to a buyer or at

a mortgage refinance closing. (Id. at ¶24.)

B. Coleman Transaction

In July 2005, Plaintiff Coleman refinanced the mortgage on her home and purchased title

insurance. (Id. at ¶40; Ex. A.) In December 2006, Plaintiff Coleman refinanced her mortgage a

second time and purchased title insurance from Commonwealth Land at closing. (Id. at ¶3.)

Involved in this closing were NovaStar Mortgage, Inc. (“NovaStar”), which made the loan to

Plaintiff, and Brokers Settlement Services (“Brokers”). (Id. at ¶53(a).) Brokers maintained dual

roles throughout the closing transaction as title agent and settlement agent. (Id.) Plaintiff Coleman

paid $1,260.88 for the new insurance. (Id.; Ex. B). Plaintiff alleges that she should have been

charged the discounted Refinance Rate, or $848.70, rather than the undiscounted amount. (Id. at

¶41.)

C. Bowmer Transaction

In January 2006, Plaintiff Bowmer also refinanced the mortgage on her home through

NovaStar. (Id. at ¶44; Ex. C.) Madison Title Agency, LLC (“Madison”) participated in the closing

on the loan as both title agent and settlement agent, and Bowmer purchased title insurance from

Commonwealth Land. (Id. at ¶53(b).) The HUD-1 settlement statement listed the title insurance

premium paid as $918.75. (Id.; Ex. D.) Bowmer alleges she was overcharged because she was

entitled to the discount rate based on a prior refinancing and purchase of title insurance. Bowmer

claims that the correct rate should have been $660.06 (Id. at ¶45) or $658.46 (Id. at ¶53(b).)

7

Document info
Document views81
Page views81
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 14:58:57 UTC 2016
Pages38
Paragraphs853
Words11377

Comments