Elizabeth Valentine purchased a home in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She applied for and received a home loan from Salmon Building and Loan Association (Salmon) for the purpose of paneling the cellar walls and redecorating the house. Salmon took a security interest in the house as collateral for the loan. Although Salmon gave Valentine a disclosure document, nowhere on the document were finance charges disclosed. The document did notify Valentine that Salmon had a security interest in the house. More than two years later, Valentine sued Salmon (which had since merged with Influential Savings and Loan Association) to rescind the loan. Who wins? Did Salmon act ethically in this case? Valentine v. Influential Savings and Loan Association, 572 F. Supp. 36, 1983 U. S. Dist. Lexis 15884 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania)

  • CreatedAugust 12, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question