SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(US)(ca2) 51

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Jean Robert Saint-Jean – Appellant
Versus
Emigrant Mortg. Co. Inc. – Respondent



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

August Term 2023

(Argued: February 14, 2024 Decided: February 19, 2025)

Docket No. 22-3094-cv

JEAN ROBERT SAINT-JEAN, EDITH SAINT-JEAN, FELEX SAINTIL, LINDA COMMODORE, BEVERLEY SMALL, YANICK SAINTIL, JEANETTE SMALL, FELIPE HOWELL JR., AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF FELIPE R. HOWELL, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

FELIPE HOWELL, Plaintiff,

v.

EMIGRANT MORTGAGE COMPANY, EMIGRANT BANK, Defendants-Appellants,

EMIGRANT SAVINGS BANK-MANHATTAN, EMIGRANT BANCORP, INC., Defendants.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Before: CHIN, PARK, and ROBINSON, Circuit Judges. In this "reverse redlining" case, eight Black homeowners in New York City sued the defendant-appellant lending institution and affiliated entities, alleging that the lender violated federal, state, and city antidiscrimination laws by making mortgage refinancing loans at extraordinarily high default interest rates to Black and Latino individuals in poor neighborhoods who had no income, no assets, and low credit scores, but high equity in their homes, and then foreclosing on the loans when the individuals defaulted. Following a jury verdict in favor of the homeowners, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brodie, C.J.) entered final judgment awarding four of the homeowners $722,044 in compensatory damages and four other homeowners nominal damages.

On appeal, the lender argues that the district court erred in three ways: first, by finding the homeowners' claims timely under the doctrine of equitable tolling and the discovery rule of accrual; second, in its instructions to the jury on disparate impact and disparate treatment theories of discrimination; and third, in holding, contrary to the first jury's verdict, that a release-of-claims provision in a loan modification agreement signed by two homeowners was unenforceable as a matter of law.

2 AFFIRMED. Judge Park dissents in a separate opinion.

LILA R. MILLER (Tara K. Ramchandani, Yiyang Wu, Edward K. Olds, on the brief), Relman Colfax PLLC, Washington, DC; and Rachel Geballe, Brooklyn Legal Services, Brooklyn, NY, on the brief, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

MATTHEW A. SCHWARTZ (Richard H. Klapper, on the brief), Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP; and Evandro C. Gigante, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY, on the brief, for Defendants-Appellants.

LAUREN GORODETSKY, Counsel (Steven Y. Bressler, Deputy General Counsel, Christopher Deal, Assistant General Counsel, on the brief), for Seth Frotman, General Counsel, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in support of Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, Ester Murdukhayeva, Deputy Solicitor General, Anthony R. Raduazo, Assistant Solicitor General, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae Letitia James, Attorney General for the State of New York, in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top