Boone v. Quicken Loans, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 002-035-18, 11 pp.) (J. Michelle Childs, J.) 5:15-cv-04772; D.S.C.
Holding: Even though plaintiffs complain that defendant sent them a mortgage refinance form prepopulated with “I/we will not use the services of legal counsel,” since (1) that was based on plaintiff Thelma Boone’s responses to defendant’s questions, (2) plaintiffs signed the form, (3) plaintiffs did not protest during the five weeks between signing the form and the closing, and (4) Thelma met with counsel chosen by defendant the day before the closing and did not voice any displeasure with his performance, the court holds that plaintiffs’ assertion of “no preference” is their preference. On this issue of first impression, the court predicts that the South Carolina Supreme Court would conclude that defendant did “ascertain . . . the preference of the borrower as to  legal counsel . . . relating to the closing . . .” in compliance with the South Carolina Attorney Preference Statute.
The court grants defendant’s motion for summary judgment.