DAVE R. WILLIAMS and CANDICE J. WILLIAMS v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Defendant-Respondent.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• affirming grant of summary judgment to defendant because the “alleged violations did not cause the [plaintiffs’] loss”
• finding no ascertainable loss under the MMPA where defendant’s “alleged violations did not cause the loss…foreclosure occurred because Appellants had not paid their mortgage in several months”
• affirming grant of summary judgment in defendant’s favor where the “undisputed facts show[ed] [plaintiff-]Appellants w[ould] not be able to prove an ascertainable loss caused by th[e] alleged representation”
• affirming grant of summary judgment in defendant’s favor where the “undisputed facts show[ed] [plaintiff-]Appellants w[ould] not be able to prove an ascertainable loss caused by th[e] alleged representation”
• MMPA claim denied since foreclosure occurred because debtor was delinquent in mortgage payments, not due to bank’s alleged violations
• “Because of the requirement of reliance, a claim of negligent misrepresentation will not be successful where the plaintiff took the action which caused the damage before hearing the alleged misrepresentation . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).