Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N. Va.
367 N.C. 81
| N.C. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs Bumpers and Elliott obtained loans from Community Bank with loan discount fees paid in addition to closing fees.
- HUD-1A statements show loan discount fees; plaintiffs claim no discounted loans were provided.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment on loan discount and excessive pricing claims to plaintiffs.
- Court of Appeals affirmed part and reversed part, recognizing a potential excessive pricing claim but upholding some loan discount findings.
- Supreme Court reviews whether 75-1.1 requires reliance for misrepresentation and whether it permits a price-regulation-esque excessive pricing claim.
- Court ultimately reverses Court of Appeals on some issues and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reliance required for 75-1.1 misrepresentation | Plaintiffs rely on misrepresentation of discounts to prove injury. | Misrepresentation claims require reliance to prove proximate cause. | Reliance required for misrepresentation-based 75-1.1 claim. |
| Excessive pricing under 75-1.1 | Fees for closing services can be excessive pricing actionable under 75-1.1. | Section 75-1.1 does not establish general price ceilings for closing services. | Excessive pricing claim not recognized as generally actionable; remanded for fact-specific consideration. |
| Summary judgment on loan discount claims | Evidence shows plaintiffs did not receive discounted loans despite discount fees. | Grace’s testimony creates factual disputes about discounts; summary judgment appropriate. | Genuine issues of material fact remain; grant of summary judgment reversed in part. |
| Impact of 75-38 emergency price regulation | Emergency pricing statute supports limiting fees in mortgage closings. | Emergency price controls do not apply to normal mortgage transactions; no ceiling should apply. | 75-38 does not control this case; no automatic price ceiling imposed; excessive pricing not established under 75-1.1 here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pearce v. American Defender Life Ins. Co., 316 N.C. 461 (1986) (actual injury required for deception; deception element different from misrepresentation)
- Dalton v. Camp, 353 N.C. 647 (2001) (three-part test for unfair or deceptive trade practices)
- Sampson-Bladen Oil Co. v. Walters, 86 N.C. App. 173 (1987) (overcharging or charging for goods not received actionable under 75-1.1)
- Hageman v. Twin City Chrysler-Plymouth Inc., 681 F. Supp. 303 (M.D.N.C. 1988) (actual reliance element discussed in misrepresentation context)
- Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440 (2004) (summary judgment when genuine issues of material fact exist; misrepresentation context)
- Bumpers v. Cmty. Bank of N. Va. (Bumpers I), 364 N.C. 195 (2010) (procedural history and framework for 75-1.1 claims)