Judge Allows Refi Lawsuit Vs. Rocket Mortgage To Move Ahead – NMP Skip to main content

Judge Allows Refi Lawsuit Vs. Rocket Mortgage To Move Ahead

Apr 17, 2023
Cash and gavel

2 couples who own property in N.C. claim Rocket denied a refi application in order to impose a higher rate.

A federal judge in Pennsylvania last week dismissed five claims in a lawsuit filed against Rocket Mortgage, but allowed two others to stand.

The lawsuit was filed in October 2022 by two couples who own a property in North Carolina. They claim Rocket fraudulently rejected their application to refinance a mortgage on the property in order to avoid approving a much lower mortgage rate.

According to the lawsuit, the two couples — John J. Speicher and his wife, Patricia C. Giles, both of Wyomissing, Pa., and Jeremy G. and Courtney Speicher of Concord, N.C. — filed their refinance application in March 2022 and were told their rate would be locked in at 3.99% for six weeks. 

Mortgage rates at the time began rising, however, and on on April 20 last year, the two couples learned their application had been terminated. Rocket offered to restart the application, but said the rate new would be 5.5%. 

Their lawsuit against Rocket Mortgage claimed three different counts of breach of contract, as well as negligence, fraud, and violations of the federal Truth In Lending Act and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Rocket Mortgage filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and Judge Joseph F. Leeson Jr. of U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued a ruling on April 11. 

Leeson ruled that the termination is not a breach of contract. The couples had argued that disclosure forms are a binding contract. He also dismissed claims of negligence because lenders do not owe a duty of care to borrowers, he said. 

The judge ruled, however, that the couples did provided “sufficient facts” for their fraud and unfair trade practice claims, “because they allege that Rocket Mortgage knowingly misrepresented that plaintiffs would receive a 3.99% interest rate, plaintiffs relied on that representation, and their reliance on that representation resulted in a financial loss.”

Based on the judge’s order, of the five of the claims he dismissed, three were dismissed with prejudice — which means they cannot be amended and refiled — while the other two were dismissed without prejudice. As a result, the claims of negligence and of violations of the Truth In Lending Act could be amended and refiled within seven days of the order, or April 18.

About the author
David Krechevsky was an editor at NMP.
Published
Apr 17, 2023
More from
Courts
AmeriTrust Alleges $14M Baltimore DSCR Fraud Scheme

Court records show more than 90 loans originated through one broker using six borrower LLCs, one title agency, and two principal appraisers

Sep 16, 2026
AI Errors Leave Mortgage Trustee Without Brief In Foreclosure Appeal

Outside counsel’s fabricated citations expose a third-party oversight risk for mortgage servicers, trustees, and investors

Sep 10, 2026
Garg Pitches $2 Billion Better Turnaround; Board Calls Plan ‘Unworkable’

Former CEO targets zero monthly cash burn through higher mortgage volume, AI-driven operating changes, and $2 million in monthly savings

Sep 04, 2026
UWM’s $603 Million Hedge Loss Has Drawn Three Shareholder Lawsuits — So Far

One securities class action challenges UWM’s disclosures, while two newer stockholder suits target board oversight of the $27.5 billion derivatives position

Sep 03, 2026
Rocket Adds New Broker Allegations, Refinance Data To UWM Lawsuit

Amended complaint adds a named broker, new loan-level figures and a claim that damages have climbed to at least $100 million

Sep 01, 2026
Better’s $15 Million Offer To Garg Complicates Its Case Against Him

The mortgage lender portrayed its founder as unfit to lead, but Garg says it offered him a lucrative advisory role three days after firing him

Aug 26, 2026