I am less familiar with the alleged facts of this case. But I could imagine lack of knowledge if, e.g., someone signed a document without reading it closely, read the document but misunderstood it (perhaps after receiving bad advice), or believed they would or had also signed a Second Home Rider.
iirc, in Cook's case the two loans closed within a month of each other. Given modern mortgage practices, if she really did apply for the GA property as a primary residence she would have had to ignore the second home option on the application, lied about the reason for recent inquiries...
...lied about her intent for the MI property or failed to disclose it/falsely affirm that she disclosed all the property she owned, potentially lied about her work situation, etc it would actually be really hard to make a mistake in that situation
given minimal, if any, downside to treating it as a second home I find it much more likely that she applied appropriately and either there was a second home rider or the *lender* made an error in not preparing one
How would you sort that all out? May not be a clear answer and totally fair if that's your response, but I'm curious as to how she would demonstrate a lender mistake.
borrowers are given a copy of their closing documents which generally include a copy of the loan application. They also receive copies of disclosures at least twice during the process, which may include initial and updated applications. if there's written communication with the loan officer, etc
also, at the time the borrower is signing the closing documents the deal is effectively done in many cases. the lender's failure to prepare appropriate riders based on the information in the application is not a material issue for the extension of credit
Thanks!
This is very helpful. Thank you! I'm guessing we'll get a lot more information when Cook files her lawsuit.