Legal Opinion

Madsen v. Washington Mutual Bank FSB

Utah Supreme Court

Decided September 23, 2008No. 20060597PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DURRANT, Associate Chief Justice:

INTRODUCTION

T1 In 1964, Richard and Naney Madsen financed the purchase of their home by borrowing money from Prudential Federal Savings and Loan Association ("Prudential") under a real estate mortgage contract. The contract obligated the Madsens to make monthly payments into an account held by Prudential for the purpose of paying taxes and insurance premiums. - Prudential paid no interest or earnings on the running account balance. The Madsens sued, seeking interest on their account. This case requires us to decide whether the Madsens may recover, on a common…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Gully v. First Nat. Bank in MeridianSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
  2. English v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. Free v. BlandSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  4. Wallis v. Pan American Petroleum Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1966
  5. Retherford v. AT & T Communications of the Mountain States, Inc.Utah Supreme Court · 1992

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Brady v. ParkUtah Supreme Court · 2019
  2. Utah Department of Transportation v. IversUtah Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Idrive Logistics LLC v. Integracore LLCCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2018
  4. Olguin v. AndertonUtah Supreme Court · 2019
  5. Madsen v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.Utah Supreme Court · 2012

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API