M & T Mortgage Corp. v. White Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 45,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
M & T Mortgage Corp. v. White, 736 F. Supp. 2d 538 (2010)
In real estate transactions, discrimination occurs in two ways. First, sellers or lenders may refuse to work with a buyer solely because that buyer is a member of a protected class, known as redlining. Second, sellers or lenders may sell or loan to a buyer based on predatory terms solely because that buyer is a member of a protected class, known as reverse redlining. In M & T Mortgage versus White, a federal district court in New York considered whether a group of plaintiffs could assert a discrimination claim based on reverse redlining under federal law.
Leo White and Linda and Kimberly Council purchased multifamily homes from Better Homes through a mortgage given by Madison Home Equities. All three were African American and planned to rent part of the homes to tenants and use the rental income to pay their mortgages.
Better Homes performed repair and renovation work on the homes prior to closing so the homes could be rented. However, White and the Councils had issues with their homes shortly after closing, which prevented them from being able to rent. Eventually, White and the Councils defaulted on their mortgage payments, and Better Homes foreclosed.
Subsequently, White and the Councils sued Better Homes and Madison in federal district court, alleging, among other things, discrimination under the Fair Housing Act, or FHA, and Equal Credit Opportunity Act, or ECOA. Specifically, White and the Councils claimed that Better Homes and Madison engaged in reverse redlining by providing them with housing or lending on less favorable terms than other borrowers would’ve received outside their protected class. M & T Mortgage intervened as a third-party plaintiff, although its involvement was minimal.
The parties all moved for summary judgment. Judge Garaufis assigned the case to Magistrate Judge Pohorelsky for a report and recommendation.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: www.quimbee.com/cases/m-amp-t...
The Quimbee App features over 45,900 case briefs keyed to 984 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: www.quimbee.com/cases/m-amp-t...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our CZcams Channel ► czcams.com/users/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries