Legal Opinion
Hull v. Bowest Corp.
Supreme Court of Colorado
Decided May 29, 1984No. 82SC169PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
ERICKSON, Chief Justice.
The trial court conditioned Ronald and Delores Hull’s (petitioners) right to rescind a real estate mortgage transaction pursuant to the Federal Truth In Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1635 (1976), upon petitioners’ tender of the unpaid principal loan balance. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Hull v. Bowest Corporation, 649 P.2d 334 (Colo.App.1982). We granted certiorari and now affirm the Court of Appeals.
I
The record reveals the following pertinent facts. Prior to May 30, 1975, petitioners filed a loan application with Affiliated Mortgage Investments, Inc. (Affiliated).…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Eugene Roosevelt Powers and Lila Virginia Powers v. Sims and LevinCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1976
- Austin C. Palmer and Helen M. Palmer, Husband and Wife v. Gladys S. WilsonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
- James A. Rudisell v. The Fifth Third BankCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
- Joseph E. Gerasta, Josefina E. Gerasta, Wife of Joseph E. Gerasta v. Hibernia National Bank v. U. S. Building Materials Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- In Re FosterUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Oklahoma · 1989