The Loan Interest and Protection Act, which prohibits residential mortgage lenders from collecting excessive fees and charges, does not provide a plaintiff a cause of action to sue a lender’s attorney for allegedly collecting excessive fees, the state Superior Court has ruled.
On April 23, a split three-judge panel upheld a decision from the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas tossing two borrowers’ claims seeking recovery against Washington Mutual, Wells Fargo and the attorney offices that helped the companies enforce and collect the debt obligations. The plaintiffs had argued that counsel for the lenders had violated the act, and therefore should have been allowed to recover for damages.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
