Settlement of Charbonneau v Mortgage Lender of America

Settlement of Charbonneau v Mortgage Lender of America

Posted on

JSMedia – In Charbonneau v. Mortgage Lender of America, LLC, plaintiff Beaucharbonneau seeks damages for unpaid wages and overtime. He claims that his employer knowingly misclassified him as an exempt employee, required non-exempt loan officers to work off the clock, and unlawfully deducted certain fees from his wages. He has filed a lawsuit against the company for these violations.

In this case, a mortgage lending company employed over 300 lending professionals who were paid a minimum wage. These professionals sold mortgage loans over the phone and through the Internet. They included loan officers, team leads, and directors.

The plaintiff worked as a loan officer and team lead for the company. The lawsuit claimed that the employer failed to pay her the minimum wage required by federal law, and was violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Settlement of Charbonneau v Mortgage Lender of America

Settlement of Charbonneau v Mortgage Lender of America

In this case, the plaintiffs brought a class action suit against the company for allegedly misclassifying her as an FLSA employee. The court ruled in favor of the workers, conditionally certifying two FLSA classes and denying the employer’s motion to decertify these classes.

In this case, the defendant provided online lending services. Plaintiff worked as a loan officer and team lead, and claims that his employer wrongfully classified him as an exempt employee. The plaintiff also claims that his employer failed to pay him for all hours worked and improperly took deductions for certain fees. However, the Court found that the settlement is a reasonable resolution for the plaintiffs. He has the right to seek damages and compensation for his unpaid wages under federal law.

Under the Truth in Lending Act, applicants have three business days to cancel the transaction. In some instances, the applicant has a right to request the case to be closed. In this case, the applicant is entitled to receive a refund. In the end, the lender cannot disburse any funds until after the rescission period ends. It is also possible to request a case to be removed.

The court ruled that the lender was not required to disclose the costs of the settlement to the applicant. In addition, the Court ruled that the lender was required to provide the buyer with a copy of the loan agreement. The underlying contract in the mortgage loan states that if the homeowner fails to make the payments, the lender can sell the property. In such cases, the homeowner is entitled to a full refund.

COUPON CODE:
...