EMMA ELOISE KAI, APPELLANT,
v.
AAMES CAPITAL CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Fourth District affirmed the trial court's foreclosure judgment against Kai but reversed the finding of a TILA violation regarding public official fee disclosure, holding that the fees were properly itemized on the HUD-1 statement.
Public official fees that are properly itemized and disclosed on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement do not constitute a technical violation of the Federal Truth in Lending Act.
[1] Public official fees that are properly itemized and disclosed on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement comply with the Federal Truth in Lending Act disclosure requirements under 12 C.F.R. …
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAames Capital Corporation filed a foreclosure action against Emma and Luk Kai on a mortgage. After Luk Kai's death, Emma Kai filed counterclaims and a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Violation Of Truth In Lending Act cases and more on FLexlaw
ROTHSCHILD, RONALD J., Associate Judge.
Aames Capital Corporation filed a complaint against Emma and Luk Kai to foreclose a mortgage. After Luk Kai passed away, Emma Kai filed a counterclaim and affirmative defenses. Following a non-jury trial, the trial court entered a final judgment in favor of Aames on the foreclosure claim and all of the counterclaims and affirmative defenses, except for a portion of -the, First Affirmative Defense, under which the trial court concluded that Aames was liable for a Federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) violation and awarded Kai $1,000 in damagés. Kai timely appealed the final judgment. Aames timely cross-appealed.
We affirm as to all three issues raised by Kai on appeal. However, we reverse as to the issue raised by Aames on cross-appeal. We are unpersuaded by Kai’s argument, both on appeal and cross-appeal, regarding public official fees; we find that there is no technical violation of TILA. The public official fees were properly itemized and disclosed on the HUD-1 Settlement Statement. See Official Staff Commentary to 12 C.F.R. § 226.18(o). As such, we remand for the trial court to vacate Paragraph 18 of the Final Judgment in which the trial court found Aames liable for a technical violation of TILA regarding the disclosure of public official fees and Paragraph 34 awarding Kai damages of $1,000 for this technical violation.
Affirmed In Part, Reversed In Part.
POLEN and MAY, JJ., concur.