Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Greuling v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

January 4, 2005

WILLIAM GREULING, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC., RESPONDENT.



Olmsted County District Court File No. C7025050.

Considered and decided by Harten, Presiding Judge; Stoneburner, Judge; and Parker, Judge.*fn1

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

An oral promise to refinance a mortgage loan is "a new credit agreement" for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 513.33, subd. 3(a)(3) (2002), and cannot be enforced under a theory of promissory estoppel.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Stoneburner, Judge

Affirmed

OPINION

Appellant William Greuling challenges summary judgment granted to respondent Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. on his claims of negligent misrepresentation, promissory estoppel, and equitable estoppel.*fn2 We affirm.

FACTS

Greuling asserts that he was induced to purchase a home on unfavorable terms by a promise made by Wells Fargo agent Scott Malo that Wells Fargo would "refinance the entire transaction" immediately after closing. Greuling had been working with Malo to finance the purchase. After closing, Greuling contacted Wells Fargo about refinancing and was told that he had to wait six months before the mortgage could be refinanced due to federal regulations. Greuling made only one payment on the mortgage to Wells Fargo, and Wells Fargo eventually foreclosed. Greuling lived in the house for approximately 16 months. About seven months after Greuling was required to leave the home he sued Wells Fargo alleging, among other things, breach of a contract to refinance, promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation, and equitable estoppel. The district court granted summary judgment to Wells Fargo dismissing all of Greuling's claims. This appeal followed.

ISSUES

I. Did the district court err by granting summary judgment on Greuling's claim of negligent misrepresentation?

II. Does Minn. Stat. § 513.33, subd. 3(a) (2002), prevent a claim of promissory estoppel to enforce an oral promise to refinance a mortgage loan?

III. Did the district court err by granting summary judgment on Greuling's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.