McFarland v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
810 F.3d 273 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA), a loan agreement that provides a principal amount greater than the value of the securing property is not, by itself, substantively unconscionable. However, the Act permits a standalone claim for unconscionable inducement, which allows a contract to be invalidated based on unfair conduct in the bargaining process, even without a showing that the contract's terms are substantively unfair.
Facts:
- In 2004, Philip McFarland purchased a home in West Virginia for approximately $110,000.
- In June 2006, seeking to consolidate about $40,000 in other debts, McFarland discussed refinancing with Greentree Mortgage Corporation.
- Greentree arranged an appraisal, after which McFarland was informed that his home's market value had risen to $202,000.
- Based on this valuation, McFarland entered into a new mortgage agreement with Wells Fargo for $181,800 with an adjustable interest rate, using the proceeds to consolidate his debts.
- By late 2007, McFarland began to struggle with the increased mortgage payments.
- In May 2010, McFarland and Wells Fargo entered into a loan modification that reduced the interest rate but increased the principal balance.
- McFarland remained unable to meet his payment obligations, and in 2012, Wells Fargo initiated foreclosure proceedings on his home.
- A 2012 retroactive appraisal determined that the home's actual value in June 2006 had been only $120,000.
Procedural Posture:
- To prevent foreclosure, Philip McFarland sued Greentree, Wells Fargo, and U.S. Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.
- The complaint alleged, among other claims, that the Wells Fargo loan was an 'unconscionable contract' under the WVCCPA.
- McFarland reached a settlement with defendant Greentree.
- The remaining defendants, Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank, filed a motion for summary judgment on the unconscionability claim.
- The district court granted the banks' motion for summary judgment, holding that McFarland failed to demonstrate substantive unconscionability, which the court deemed a necessary element for any unconscionability claim.
- McFarland (appellant) appealed the district court's dismissal of his unconscionable contract claim to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act permit a claim for unconscionable inducement based solely on unfairness in the bargaining process, even if the resulting contract's terms are not substantively unconscionable?
Opinions:
Majority - Harris, J.
Yes, the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA) allows for a standalone claim based on unconscionable inducement, meaning a contract can be invalidated due to unfair conduct in the bargaining process even if the contract's terms are not substantively unfair. The court first affirmed that a loan exceeding the value of the underlying collateral is not, by itself, substantively unconscionable. Substantive unconscionability requires terms that are 'one-sided' and 'overly harsh' to the disadvantaged party, and a large, under-collateralized loan primarily disadvantages the lender, not the borrower. However, the court found that the district court erred by stopping its analysis there. The plain language of the WVCCPA, W. Va. Code § 46A-2-121(1)(a), states a court may refuse to enforce an agreement found to be 'unconscionable at the time it was made, or to have been induced by unconscionable conduct.' The disjunctive 'or' creates two distinct causes of action. Therefore, while a traditional unconscionability claim requires both procedural and substantive elements, the 'unconscionable inducement' claim is a separate, statutory cause of action that allows a contract to be voided based solely on misconduct in the formation process, such as misrepresentation.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the doctrine of unconscionability under the WVCCPA by establishing 'unconscionable inducement' as a distinct, standalone claim. By separating procedural misconduct from the substantive fairness of a contract's terms, the ruling lowers the threshold for consumers to challenge predatory lending practices. The case creates a precedent that allows courts to scrutinize lenders' pre-contractual behavior, such as using inflated appraisals, independently of whether the final loan terms are grossly one-sided. This will likely lead to more litigation focusing on the fairness of the inducement process in consumer credit transactions in West Virginia and may influence other jurisdictions with similar statutes.
