Krause v. GE Capital Mortgage Service, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiffs Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claim failed because the defendant disclosed the additional fees to the plaintiffs prior to the plaintiffs’ selection of the additional services and therefore the defendant did not engage in an unfair practice
• declining to apply expressio unius because it was a \double-edged sword\ that \could equally be argued\ to support both parties' positions
• affirming summary judgment on ICFA claim where the undisputed evidence established that the defendant made “full and accurate disclosure[s]” and “did not conceal, suppress, or hide any material facts.”
• “A prepayment penalty is one that is peculiarly associated with prepayment alone ... and it would not be charged if the loan was paid at maturity”
• “[C]ourts resort to tools of contract construction when the terms of the contract are ambiguous.”
• actual charge of fully disclosed fax fee upon mortgage prepayment is not deceptive

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).