Brown v. Cameron-Brown Co.

Decision Date18 June 1981
Docket NumberNos. 80-1559,CAMERON-BROWN,80-1560,s. 80-1559
Citation652 F.2d 375
Parties1981-1 Trade Cases 64,100 Edward L. BROWN, Sr., Individually and on Behalf of All Members of a Class of Borrowers Similarly Situated; Julius and Esther Collins, Individually and on Behalf of All Members of a Class of Borrowers Similarly Situated; Thomas G. and Shirley Dillard, Individually and on Behalf of All Members of a Class of Borrowers Similarly Situated; Elish Lake, Individually and on Behalf of All Members of a Class of Borrowers Similarly Situated; William L. and Hilda McNeely, Individually and on Behalf of All Members of a Class of Borrowers Similarly Situated; Percy Vandeleeuw, Individually and on Behalf of All Members of a Class of Borrowers Similarly Situated; James A. and Sheila White, Individually and on Behalf of All Members of a Class of Borrowers Similarly Situated; George M. Jr. and Constance Wyatt, Individually and on Behalf of All Members of a Class of Borrowers Similarly Situated; Appellants, v.COMPANY; Century Mortgage Company, Inc.; Colonial Group, Inc.; Colonial Mortgage Corporation of D. C.; Colonial Mortgage Service Company; Countrywide Funding Corporation; Finney Mortgage Corporation; First Colonial Investors Corporation; The Lomas & Nettleton Company; Metropolitan Mortgage Fund, Inc.; First Mortgage Corporation; United Virginia Mortgage Corporation; VNB Mortgage Corporation; Virginia Investment and Mortgage Corporation; Weaver Brothers, Inc.; Western Pacific Financial Corporation of Maryland; Citizens Trust Bank; Dominion National Bank; Fidelity American Bank (now known as Central Fidelity Bank); First Virginia Bank of Tidewater; Peoples Bank of Chesapeake; Virginia National Bank; United Virginia Bank/Seaboard National; Atlantic Permanent Savings and Loan Association; Chesapeake Savings and Loan Association; First American Savings and Loan Association of Virginia; First Federal Savings and Loan Association (now known as First Savings & Loan Association of Suffolk); Life Federal Savings and Loan Association; Mutual Federal Savings and Loa
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Arnold Levin, Philadelphia, Pa. (Michael Fishbein, Claudia Tesoro, Adler, Barish, Levin & Creskoff, Philadelphia, Pa., Calvin W. Breit, William D. Breit, Briet, Rutter & Montagna, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellants/cross-appellees.

James C. Roberts, Richmond, Va. (Mays, Valentine, Davenport & Moore, Richmond, Va., Alan H. Silberman, Robert T. Joseph Sonnenschein, Carlin, Nath & Rosenthal, Chicago, Ill., Nathan H. Smith, Sands, Anderson, Marks & Miller, Richmond, Va., Guilford D. Ware, Timothy A. Coyle, Crenshaw, Ware & Johnson, Edward Delk, Delk, James & Jackson, Alan J. Hofheimer, Thomas F. McPhaul, Hofheimer, Nusbaum & McPhaul, Norfolk, Va., Robert E. Jensen, George G. Olsen, Williams & Jensen, P. C., Washington, D. C., Jerry M. Miller, Jr., Raleigh, N. C., Byron P. Kloeppel, H. Thomas Fennell, Jr., Cooper, Davis, Kilgore, Parker, Leon & Fennell, Portsmouth, Va., Daniel J. Goldberg, Silver, Freedman, Housley & Taff, Washington, D. C., Toy D. Savage, Jr., Peter M. Huber, Willcox, Savage, Lawrence, Dickson & Spindle, P. C., Norfolk, Va., L. Cleaves Manning, Manning, Ferrell & Morris, Portsmouth, Va., John M. Williamson, Lynch & Nelson, Los Angeles, Cal., Roy E. Kinsey, Jr., Daytona Beach, Fla., Mark B. Sandground, Sandground, Good & Lewis, Philip L. Cohan, Peter W. Segal, Colton & Boykin, Washington, D. C., William T. Prince, Robert H. Powell, III, Williams, Worrell, Kelly & Greer, Norfolk, Va., John S. Battle, Jr., O. Randolph Rollins, Anne Marie Whittemore, McGuire, Woods & Battle, Richmond, Va., J. Randolph Smith, Jr., Martinsville, Va., Richard R. Nageotte, Nageotte, Borinsky & Zelnick, Woodbridge, Va., George W. Taylor, Jr., Gary J. Spahn, Mays, Valentine, Davenport & Moore, Richmond, Va., Daniel J. Goldberg, Silver, Freedman, Housley & Taff, Washington, D. C., Robert R. MacMillan, S. Miles Dumville, Breeden, Howard & MacMillan, Branden Vandeventer, John B. King, Jr., Vandeventer, Black, Meredith & Martin, Ronald H. Marks, White & Marks, Norfolk, Va., Robert Haas, Corporate Counsel, Metropolitan Mortg. Fund, Inc., Alexandria, Va., Conrad M. Shumadine, Ross C. Reeves, Kaufman & Oberndorfer, Norfolk, Va., Robert M. Saunders, Saunders, Carleton, Morrison, Stephenson & Spratley, Newport News, Va., H. Calvin Spain, Pickett, Spain & Lyle, Virginia Beach, Va., T. S. Ellis, III, Daniel A. Carrell, William F. Young, Hunton & Williams, Richmond, Va., Joseph J. Lawler, Kellam, Pickrell & Lawler, Norfolk, Va., Bernard I. Nordlinger, John J. Cooleen, King & Nordlinger, Washington, D. C., Michael A. Inman, Inman, Lee & Olivieri, P. C., Virginia Beach, Va., on brief), for appellees/cross appellants.

Before HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge, and WINTER and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.

WINTER, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs, a group of Virginia mortgagors, sued defendants, a group of Virginia lending institutions, alleging violations of the antitrust statutes with respect to the handling of escrow accounts. Specifically they complain that thirty-five of the thirty-eight defendants required borrowers to make, in addition to payments of the interest and principal on their mortgages, monthly escrow payments to pay property taxes, insurance premiums and other assessments owed to third parties; and that these defendants neither account to plaintiffs or other borrowers for any profit earned on the escrow deposits between the time such sums are paid by the borrowers and the time that they are paid out by the lenders for their intended purpose nor do defendants "capitalize" these payments, i. e., credit the escrow payments to the unpaid balance of the principal of the mortgage pending their use for their intended purpose, thereby reducing the total amount of interest payable on the mortgages. This pattern of conduct is alleged to have resulted from an illegal conspiracy.

After suit was instituted, the district court deferred discovery on the merits of the litigation for an indefinite period but permitted discovery to proceed with reference to plaintiffs' request for class certification. An initial motion to dismiss on behalf of all defendants was denied, but plaintiffs were directed to file particularized allegations of fact concerning the existence of a conspiracy with respect to thirty-five defendants ("non-dealing defendants," not coterminous with the group of thirty-five defendants who required escrows) which had not had any direct dealings with plaintiffs and which did not hold mortgages on their property. Plaintiffs purportedly complied and then the non-dealing defendants renewed their motion to dismiss and all defendants joined in another motion to dismiss. The motion of the non-dealing defendants was denied, but plaintiffs were directed to particularize their allegations with respect to their standing to sue the non-dealing defendants. Plaintiffs complied and the non-dealing defendants filed a second motion to dismiss and this motion and the motion to dismiss of all defendants was granted. The district court ruled that plaintiffs had standing to sue the non-dealing defendants, that plaintiffs had not violated Rule 11, F.R.Civ.P., by filing sham pleadings, and that plaintiffs had not violated Rule 41(b) by failing to comply with orders of the district court to specify the facts forming the basis of their allegations of conspiracy. ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Chambers v. King Buick GMC, LLC, Civil Action No. DKC 13–2347.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 2 Septiembre 2014
    ...minimum requirement of Art. III,’ Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 505, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975).”); Brown v. Cameron–Brown Co., 652 F.2d 375, 378 (4th Cir.1981) ( “[w]e are in full accord with the district court that when plaintiffs alleged injury as a result of a conspiracy in w......
  • Chambers v. King Buick GMC, LLC, Civil Action No. DKC 13–2347.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 2 Septiembre 2014
    ...the minimum requirement of Art. III,’ Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 505, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975).”); Brown v. Cameron–Brown Co., 652 F.2d 375, 378 (4th Cir.1981) ( “[w]e are in full accord with the district court that when plaintiffs alleged injury as a result of a conspiracy ......
  • Bodner v. Banque Paribas
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 31 Agosto 2000
    ...conspiracy where there were non-dealing actors, plaintiff has standing to sue the non-dealing partner-defendants. Brown v. Cameron-Brown Co., 652 F.2d 375, 378 (4th Cir. 1981). Presidential Life Ins. Co. v. Milken, 946 F.Supp. 267, 280 (S.D.N.Y.1996). Defendants may be responsible for a co-......
  • Behalf ex rel. All Other Consumers Similarly Situated v. Atl. Auto. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 17 Enero 2014
    ...confer standing upon the plaintiff to sue the non[-]dealing parties.” Cent. Wesleyan Coll., 6 F.3d at 188 (citing Brown v. Cameron–Brown Co., 652 F.2d 375, 378 (4th Cir.1981)). However, a plaintiff's reliance on allegations of conspiracy “ ‘may make it substantially more difficult’ ” to sat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT