No Fee RefinanceFees not refinanced
Temporary refinancing without exits for 5-bed HMOs
We have been working together with our customers for three years now. Approximately a year ago we were helping them save a quick credit to pay back a mortgage saved against a 5-bed HMO in a pop music college city that generated 2,350 per pound per month per lease. As a result, our customers only had a few weeks to find a new purchaser before their credit line ran out.
Since we had an established customer base, they came back to us to request an extended credit line. In those conditions, it was less expensive for customers to get a new business, so we proposed that they refinance on another short-term credit, but one without exits commission.
The new concept has given our customers a little leeway if they fail to sell again.
Condominium NYC refinances breakdowns because there was no meet of the mind.
Wells Fargo In Trief v. Wells Fargo and Fargo Banks, N.A., Index No. 105280/09, - N.Y.S.2d - (Sup Ct, NY County, Apr. 4, 2011) ("Trief"), claimants have asserted claims for compensation resulting from their attempted subrogation of a hypothecary claim against the respondent banks (the "Bank") for infringement of the New York Act on Unfair and Misleading Practices, N.Y. General Business Law ("NYGBL") 349, - N.Y.S.2d - ("Sup Ct, NY County, Apr. 4, 2011") ("Trief") for infringement of the New York Act on Unfair and Deceptive Practices, N.Y. General Business Law ("NYGBL").
contestants actually continued to close when plaintiffs went off re-financing a luxurious middle-town condominium situated at 15 West 53rd Street, New York, NY - apparently over a $518,75 debate. Most importantly, all participants, in particular when using more informational means of communication such as e-mail, must agree and acknowledge an "agreement on all material terms", otherwise no effective treaty will be concluded.
Facts - negotiations, non-formal communication, exchanges of standardised credit etc. - seem to be following a widespread model. One of the Bank's mortgages advisors completed the refinancing request by phone on Triefs' own account and then enclosed an e-mail with an estimate of good faith of the settlement costs (the "GFE").
GFE suggested an interest of 5. 125% and a default rule stating that the "listed tariffs are estimates - the real costs can be more or less high. "The title e-mail was: "Let me know if you want me to keep you locked up for 60 days", which Mr. Trief answered with "safe".
" Following a small disagreement over the interest rates, the bank sent the Triefs a conventional obligation note (the "letter") by fax in which it confirmed the interest rates and other particulars. Although the letters state that "you must subscribe and send back this undertaking within this time limit to make sure that you receive the conditions specified", none of the parties have subscribed to the letters.
The Triefs declined to continue on the planned deal because the bank tried to invoice them a $518.75 fixed interest renewal fee, which the Triefs never negotiate or agree to pay. Reciprocal consent means a "meeting of heads" and must involve a consensus on all key points.
However, the court found that there was no disagreement on all the main conditions of a definitive funding covenant. Two main evidences - the bank's e-mail requesting "let me know if you want me to keep you locked up for 60 days" and the GFE default terminology in which conditions could have changed - only sought approval to block the interest for a certain amount of money and not a definitive re-financing arrangement.
In addition, the Real Estate Settlement Procedure Act ('RESPA') shows that the legislator did not envisage GFE tying a creditor to a definitive credit contract. Seven [a],[g] (the "GFE is not a credit facility. There is nothing in this section to be construed as requiring a creditor to grant a credit to a particular borrower.').
The court also dismissed Triefs' action under NYGBL § 349. However, the Court found that the Triefs did not even find the bank to be consumer-oriented, since contractual conflicts between individuals, which are singular to the contracting partners, generally did not come within the law's purview. Triefs could not prove any injurious situation because they declined to complete the credit re-financing and did not make any payments to the bank.