About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (July 2018 through August 2019)

handle is hein.ali/restt5028 and id is 1 raw text is: TORTS 3D: APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY TOPIC 2. LIABILITY OF MULTIPLE TORTFEASORS FOR INDIVISIBLE HARM § 13. Vicarious Liability C.A.5, 2018. Com. (f) quot. in disc. After assignee of home equity loan brought a judicial foreclosure action against homeowner, alleging that homeowner failed to make timely payments on the loan, homeowner counterclaimed against assignee and filed third-party complaints against loan servicer and bank that issued the loan, alleging, inter alia, that bank was vicariously liable for loan servicer's failure to comply with the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). The district court granted bank's motion to dismiss. This court affirmed, holding that the RESPA only imposed statutory duties on loan servicers, and not on non-servicing banks that issued the loan. The court compared the requirements of liability found in Restatement Third of Torts: Apportionment of Liability § 13 to those found in the RESPA, and observed that the plain meaning of the RESPA precluded the possibility of vicarious liability. Christiana Trust v. Riddle, 911 F.3d 799, 805. TOPIC 3. CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY § 22. Indemnity C.A.6, 2018. Cit. in ftn. Reseller of mortgage loans, which had repurchased certain loans from buyer following the discovery of defects in the loans, sued underwriter of the loans, after underwriter refused to repurchase the loans from it or to indemnify it for its losses pursuant to their contract. The district court granted summary judgment for reseller, finding that reseller's indemnification claim was timely because it accrued when reseller repurchased the loans from buyer, rather than when it first purchased the loans from underwriter. Affirming, this court held that reseller properly pleaded a contractual indemnity claim for accrual and statute of limitations purposes, because the complaint showed that it was seeking reimbursement for damages it suffered when it paid buyer for the defective loans. The court noted that, under Restatement Third of Torts: Apportionment of Liability § 22, indemnity obligations could be express and contractual or implied for equitable reasons, and that a party to an agreement was entitled to contractual indemnification where, as here, the other party's intention to indemnify was clear from the agreement. Franklin American Mortgage Company v. University National Bank of Lawrence, 910 F.3d 270, 279. COPYRIGHT 02019 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved ALI Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most