|
4322 An action under the Unfair Competition Law based on the allegation that, in its federally related home loans transactions, a bank charged borrowers much more for loan processing, wire transfer, and tax services, than the bank was actually paying for those services raised questions of fact about whether the practice was fraudulent by being deceptive, unfair in that it violated public policy, and unlawful in that it violated various federal statutes and regulations; the action is not pre-empted by federal law; no action was pleaded under California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act because the Act does not apply to a loan transaction, or for unjust enrichment because that is not a cause of action but a remedy available in quasi-contract or breach of trust actions. or for conversion or breach of bailment because the bank was not holding plaintiffs' funds for the benefit of another.CitationMcKELL v WASHINGTON MUTUAL (Loan Overcharges) 142 CA4 1457 [See: B&PC 17200 etseq; CivC 1750 etseq; 12 USC 2601 etseq, 1461 etseq; Bank of the West v Superior Court 2 C4 1254, T/AT 10/92; Schnall v Hertz 78 CA4 1144, T/AT 4/00; Cel-Tech v LA Cellular 20 C4 163, T/AT 5/99; Kruse v Wells Fargo 383 F3 49]
|
|
