Call

(310) 782-4987

Call
Call Us Now

Bank of America Equity Maximizer Agreement and Disclosure Statement

It is particularly relevant in the present case that, under the parol rule of proof, a court cannot consider evidence outside the four corners of the contract if the agreement is unambiguous. See Law Debenture Tr. Co. of N.Y. v. Maverick Tube Corp., 595 F.3d 458, 466-67 (2d Cir. 2010). If, as in the present case, an agreement contains a merger or integration clause, “it requires the full application of the rule of pararse evidence to prevent the introduction of extrinsic evidence to modify, amend or contradict the terms of the letter”. Plans, Inc.c. CUNA Mut. In.

Soc., 769 F.3d 807, 816 (2d Cir. 2014) (jarecki city v. Shung Moo Louie, 95 N.Y.2d 665, 669 (2001)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also agreement § 29. You can apply for a Bank of America home equity line of credit through the bank`s online application. The whole process should take about 15 minutes. After answering the first questions, you will be shown how to upload the required documents and check the status of your loan application. Unlike Snide, the parties in Marine Midland entered into an agreement relating to a loan from the plaintiff to the defendant that allowed him to “determine the order or manner of disposition” of all the collateral pledged as plaintiff, “at his own discretion.” 53 N.Y.2d to 387. The Court of Appeal therefore refused to consider the evidence outside of the agreement, which was intended to dictate to the plaintiff how to apply liquidated security to the defendant`s outstanding debts, as such evidence would alter the clear terms of the agreement between the parties. Id. at 387-89. The circumstances presented here are quite similar and, like the court in Marine Midland, the court refuses to consider faQs in order to fundamentally change the terms agreed upon by the parties. Therefore, the defendant`s decision to allocate a portion of the plaintiff`s advance payments to the accumulated financing costs did not violate New York law, even though it violated the plaintiff`s express instructions, since the decision was consistent with the terms of the agreement.

When considering a motion for dismissal, the court accepts all the factual allegations of the action as true and draws all reasonable conclusions in favour of the plaintiff. See Goldstein v. Pataki, 516 F.3d 50, 56 (2d Cir. 2008). However, the Court is not required to recognise `the essential recitals in the preamble to the elements of a plea supported by mere conclusive statements`. Iqbal, 556 U.S. to 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. to 555). Instead, the complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations “to give the defendant reasonable knowledge of what the claim is and on what grounds it is based.” Port Dock & Stone Corp.c. Oldcastle Northeast, Inc., 507 F.3d 117, 121 (2d Cir.

2007) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. to 555). In addition to the factual allegations contained in the complaint, the court may also consider “the documents attached to the complaint as evidence and all documents included in the complaint by reference.” Peter F. Gaito Architecture, 602 F.3d to 64 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The parties agree that such action shall be governed by the terms of the Agreement under new York law. See agreement § 31. To argue for a breach of contract in New York, a plaintiff must “assert: (i) enter into a contract between the parties; (ii) enforcement by the applicant; (iii) non-performance by the defendant; and (iv) damages. Orchard Hill Master Fund Ltd.c. SBA Commc`ns Corp., 830 F.3d 152, 156 (2d Cir.

2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The disagreement between the parties boils down to whether the plaintiff was entitled to ask the defendant to apply its advance payments exclusively to its principal amount, excluding the accumulated financing costs. Since the court concluded that the agreement did not grant this right to the plaintiff, the defendant did not violate the agreement by failing to comply with the plaintiff`s request. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. On the 21st. In September 2007, Garry Rothbaum, a defendant, received a home line of credit secured by the plaintiff`s property in New York City. ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”), No. 7, 27. The terms of the applicant`s line of credit are documented in an equivalency and disclosure agreement (the “Agreement”). See also ECF 11 (Statement by Jeffrey J.

Chapman dated May 24, 2016 (“Chapman Decl”),e.B. A (Agreement). The bank won awards for its mobile banking and partnered with Khan Academy to launch the Better Money Habits website, which includes self-paced tutorials on various personal finance-related topics. “At no cost to Bank of America, you can upgrade your kitchen, tap into funds for tuition or medical fees, or just have funds available in an emergency,” says Michelle McLellan, director of first mortgage and home equity products at Bank of America. Plaintiff Garry Rothbaum, on his behalf and on behalf of any other person in a similar situation, is suing Bank of America, N.A., alleging that Bank of America breached its HOME EQUITY agreement. Bank of America requested that the appeal be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to disclose a claim. For the following reasons, the defendant`s application for dismissal is granted. In addition to the required monthly payments, the agreement allowed the applicant to make advance payments without penalty. Id. § 23.

However, for each advance payment, the defendant was “entitled to receive all accumulated FINANCING FEES and all other accrued fees or costs.” Id. During the term of the agreement, the applicant made numerous advance payments on his line of credit. Compl. ¶¶ 28-29. He argues that, in accordance with the agreement and a document containing the “frequently asked questions” he received from the defendant, the bank should have applied those advances exclusively to its outstanding principal, as he requested. Id. ¶¶ 16-17, 28. The FAQs state that borrowers can make “pure principal payments” by designating their payment as such. Id.

¶¶ 16-17. Instead, the defendant applied the plaintiff`s advance payments to both his outstanding principal and accumulated financing costs, prompting the plaintiff to pay a higher amount of interest over time. Id. ¶¶ 29-30. Under the agreement, the complainant could demand regular advances from the bank up to the maximum amount of his line of credit of $250,000. Agreement 1, 4. At the plaintiff`s request, the defendant would lend the amount claimed to the plaintiff, who had to repay that amount plus interest and costs. Interest on advances is defined in the agreement as a “financing fee” and accrues daily from the date the applicant requested an advance on their line of credit. The more fairness you have, the more options you have. Assessing your home`s equity † equity assumptions (discount information plus additional information and assumptions) based on a $100,000 line of credit Learn more about a home equity line of credit, how to calculate a variable interest rate, and how to get a fixed-rate loan option. What is a home equity line of credit (HOME EQUITY LINE OF CREDIT)? Save time and upload documents online securely. If approved, you can enjoy the convenience of closing in a financial center of your choicefinancial center of your choice.

After that, you can easily access your new home equity line of credit when you need it. The plaintiff`s maximization of fairness agreement and disclosure statement constitute the agreement that forms the basis of its breach of contract claim and, therefore, the court may consider it in that request for dismissal in the manner incorporated by reference into the complaint. Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57, 64 (2d Cir. 2010). . Read section 23 of the agreement states that the applicant “may pay all or part of the amount due under this line of credit in advance at any time without penalty.