After defaulting on their loan, the borrowers sued the loan servicer to recover under a variety of torts. The borrowers claimed that tax advances were improper based upon the borrowers’ tax postponement plan with the County, and that continuous notices and collection calls constituted a nuisance. The borrowers also claimed that the improper amounts reported to the credit bureaus constituted libel, invasion of privacy, and put the borrowers in a false light.

The Court of Appeals disagreed on all counts. The Court affirmed that the lender’s payment of the property taxes, even though the borrowers were under a tax postponement plan, was justified in that the borrowers did not inform the lender nor stayed current on the plan. The Court held that any discrepancies in the tax or default amounts were corrected and consistent with acceptable practices. The Court further held that the lender’s credit reporting was privileged and based in truth, and was not actionable as false light or invasion of privacy since the credit reporting bureaus were private companies distributing information only in response to specific inquiries. Finally, the Court held that the lenders’ collection practices did not constitute a private nuisance.

The Court also struck down the borrower’s attempt to file an amended complaint on the eve of trial and after the lender filed its motion for summary judgment. The Court determined that to allow the amended complaint under the circumstances would be prejudicial to the lender. The Court also struck down the borrowers’ cross motions for summary judgment and motion for reconsideration as properly denied.

Click to read Court's Decision