Simmering v. Pride Mortgage Incorporated

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Simmering v. Pride Mortgage Incorporated

949 A.2d 1018, 2007 R.I. LEXIS 137, 2007 WL 5281199

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedNovember 21, 2007

Docket2006-148-Appeal

StatusPublished

This text of 949 A.2d 1018 (Simmering v. Pride Mortgage Incorporated) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Simmering v. Pride Mortgage Incorporated, 949 A.2d 1018, 2007 R.I. LEXIS 137, 2007 WL 5281199 (R.I. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

This came before the Supreme Court for oral argument pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After considering the record, the briefs submitted by the parties, and the oral arguments of counsel, we are of the opinion that cause has been shown. Accordingly, the ease is assigned to the regular calendar for full briefing and argument. The briefing shall be in accordance with Article I, Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. The parties are directed to address, inter alia, the issue of whether or not, as a matter of tort law, a duty of care was owed to the plaintiff.

One of the issues in this case is the extent of the duty of care (if any) owed by a mortgage broker, retained by the buyer, to the seller when the mortgage broker has been made aware of the seller’s professed need for a closing to take place on or before a particular date so as to avoid substantial financial loss. The Court invites all interested parties to file briefs as amici curiae addressing this issue.

Justice GOLDBERG did not participate.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

This came before the Supreme Court for oral argument pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After considering the record, the briefs submitted by the parties, and the oral arguments of counsel, we are of the opinion that cause has been shown. Accordingly, the ease is assigned to the regular calendar for full briefing and argument. The briefing shall be in accordance with Article I, Rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. The parties are directed to address, inter alia, the issue of whether or not, as a matter of tort law, a duty of care was owed to the plaintiff.

One of the issues in this case is the extent of the duty of care (if any) owed by a mortgage broker, retained by the buyer, to the seller when the mortgage broker has been made aware of the seller’s professed need for a closing to take place on or before a particular date so as to avoid substantial financial loss. The Court invites all interested parties to file briefs as amici curiae addressing this issue.

Justice GOLDBERG did not participate.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

949 A.2d 1018, 2007 R.I. LEXIS 137, 2007 WL 5281199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simmering-v-pride-mortgage-incorporated-ri-2007.