Legal Opinion
Hull v. Bowest Corporation
Colorado Court of Appeals
Decided July 26, 1982No. 79CA0756PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
PIERCE, Judge.
In this action to rescind a real estate mortgage transaction pursuant to 15 U.S. C.A. § 1635(b) (West Supp. 1975-80) of the Federal Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA), plaintiffs Ronald and Dolores Hull appeal from a decree which conditioned rescission on the Hulls’ tender of the unpaid principal balance. We affirm.
The following findings are supported by the record. The Hulls borrowed $145,000 to refinance their home from Bowest’s assign- or, Affiliated Mortgage Company. In exchange, they gave Affiliated a promissory note secured by a deed of trust. Affiliated then assigned its…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. BarbourSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Linley v. HansonSupreme Court of Colorado · 1970
- 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
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Strunk v. Chromy-StrunkNebraska Supreme Court · 2006
- Hull v. Bowest Corp.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1984
- Hull v. Bowest CorporationColorado Court of Appeals · 1982