## Facts

- Helen Latimore, a Black homeowner in Chicago, applied to Citibank, F.S.B. for a $51,000 mortgage loan on her residence.
- Citibank applied an underwriting rule requiring a maximum 75% loan-to-value (LTV) ratio.
- Citibank employee Ed Kernbauer appraised the home at $45,000, producing an LTV of roughly 113% for the requested loan.
- Citibank employee Marcia Lundberg informed Latimore the appraisal value was too low to support the loan.
- Latimore provided a prior appraisal (under a year old) valuing the property at $82,000; Lundberg sent both appraisals to Citibank’s appraisal review department.
- The review department declined to change the $45,000 valuation, stating the higher appraisal relied on noncomparable properties located more than six blocks away.
- Citibank denied the loan based on insufficient collateral under its LTV policy.
- Latimore later obtained a $46,000 loan from another lender after a $79,000 appraisal, at an interest rate one percentage point higher than the rate she alleged Citibank would have offered.
- Latimore alleged the appraisal and resulting denial were racially discriminatory and also violated Illinois consumer-fraud law; the record indicated Kernbauer used the same appraisal methodology for similarly situated properties owned by white borrowers.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable inference that Citibank and its employees denied Latimore’s mortgage application because of race, in violation of the Fair Housing Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982.
2. Whether the evidence supported a claim that defendants engaged in deceptive or unfair practices under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act in connection with the appraisal and denial.

## Decision

- The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all claims.
- The court held Latimore failed to produce sufficient evidence of discriminatory intent or that defendants’ stated reason for denial (appraised value and LTV limits) was pretext for race discrimination.
- The court also held Latimore failed to show any deceptive or unfair conduct sufficient to sustain an Illinois consumer-fraud claim.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff opposing summary judgment on lending-discrimination claims must produce evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that race motivated the adverse action, either through direct evidence or via burden-shifting proof of pretext.
- A lender’s facially neutral underwriting criterion (such as an LTV cap), coupled with an appraisal-based collateral determination, constitutes a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason unless the plaintiff can show it was applied differently by race or otherwise served as a pretext.
- Disagreement between appraisals, without evidence tying the lower appraisal or the lender’s reliance on it to race-based treatment, does not by itself establish discrimination.
- An Illinois consumer-fraud claim requires evidence of deceptive or unfair conduct; disclosure of the stated basis for denial and absence of misrepresentation or concealment defeats the claim on summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed all claims because the record supported a nondiscriminatory appraisal-based application of Citibank’s LTV policy and contained no evidence from which a jury could reasonably find race discrimination or actionable deception in the loan-denial process.


Latimore v. Citibank, F.S.B., 979 F. Supp. 662 (N.D. Ill. 1997)