Bomar v. Pacific Union Financial, LLC
1:15-cv-10842
| N.D. Ill. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- Bomar and Gena Bomar executed an FHA loan secured by their home; they later divorced with a decree awarding half the home to each and directing a quitclaim transfer to both as tenants in common.
- Bomar sought mortgage assistance; he attached the divorce decree but failed to provide Gena’s financial information required for a co-borrower.
- Bomar submitted a corrected Quit Claim Deed showing sole possession, but Pacific Union denied the request for lack of compliance with the divorce decree.
- A second loss-mitigation request was filed with a June 18, 2015 Quit Claim Deed; Pacific Union denied again, stating ownership did not align with the decree.
- Bomar appealed the denial through a CFPB complaint portal; Pacific Union treated the CFPB complaint as an appeal and denied after reviewing under FHA-HAMP and HUD guidelines.
- Bomar filed suit challenging Pacific Union’s handling of the loss-mitigation process under RESPA and ICFA, and Pacific Union moved for summary judgment, which the court granted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pacific Union violated RESPA § 1024.41 by not timely responding to the appeal. | Bomar contends the 30‑day resolution requirement was violated. | Pacific Union treated Bomar's CFPB complaint as the appeal and had no further appeal. | No RESPA violation; appeal deemed concluded after CFPB submission. |
| Whether the independent review of the appeal complied with RESPA § 1024.41(h)(1)(3). | Bomar asserts independent review by same personnel violated the rule. | Defendant shows independent review occurred; argument not raised in complaint. | No genuine dispute; argument insufficient and unsupported by law. |
| Whether Pacific Union's conduct was unfair under ICFA. | Pacific Union violated public policy and exploited coercive practices. | Actions were not oppressive, lacked undue coercion, and alternatives existed. | No ICFA violation; no substantial injury shown and measures to avoid injury existed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shanahan v. City of Chicago, 82 F.3d 776 (7th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff may not amend complaint via summary judgment briefing)
- Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 775 N.E.2d 961 (Ill. 2002) (unfairness standards under ICFA require multiple factors; not all must be shown)
- Siegel v. Shell Oil Co., 612 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 2010) (unfairness in ICFA requires one or more of three criteria)
- Galvan v. Northwestern Mem'l Hosp., 888 N.E.2d 529 (Ill. App. 2008) (oppression analysis for ICFA)
- Bammerlin v. Navistar Int’l Transp. Corp., 30 F.3d 898 (7th Cir. 1994) (evidence standards in summary judgment)