## Facts

- Leo White and Linda and Kimberly Council, African-American first-time purchasers, bought residential properties marketed as investment/rental opportunities.
- The properties were sold through Better Homes Depot, Inc. and financed through a related lending process involving Madison Home Equities, LLC; M & T Mortgage Corporation later held or serviced the mortgages.
- After closing, plaintiffs alleged the properties were in severe disrepair and not rentable, causing financial losses.
- Plaintiffs alleged a coordinated scheme that targeted minority buyers in predominantly minority neighborhoods through deceptive sales practices and predatory lending (“reverse-redlining”).
- The consolidated litigation included M&T’s foreclosure/collection action against White and the purchasers’ affirmative civil-rights, consumer-protection, and fraud claims against the seller, lender-originator, and related participants.

## Issues

1. Whether the summary-judgment record permitted a reasonable factfinder to conclude that defendants engaged in discriminatory sales or lending practices violating federal fair-housing and fair-lending statutes.
2. Whether evidence of misrepresentations or omissions about property condition and value was sufficient to proceed on New York fraud and deceptive-practices theories.
3. Whether disputed questions of intent, targeting, reliance, and causation precluded summary judgment.
4. Whether consolidation for trial was appropriate given overlapping evidence and the risk of prejudice or juror confusion.

## Decision

- The court adopted the magistrate judge’s factual findings for purposes of the motions and largely accepted the recommendation to deny summary judgment on core claims.
- The court held that the record contained sufficient evidence of a pattern of transactions and surrounding circumstances from which a jury could infer discriminatory targeting and predatory conduct.
- The court concluded that material disputes remained regarding alleged misrepresentations or concealment about the properties’ condition and the buyers’ resulting damages.
- The court determined that intent and credibility questions could not be resolved as a matter of law on summary judgment.
- The court approved consolidation for trial in light of substantially overlapping evidence and claims, subject to measures to reduce unfair prejudice or confusion.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper where the record would allow a reasonable jury to find discriminatory targeting or predatory conduct and material facts remain genuinely disputed.
- Discrimination claims may proceed based on circumstantial evidence and patterns of conduct, even where direct proof of intent is limited, when the totality of facts supports an inference of discrimination.
- Fraud- and deception-based claims can survive summary judgment where evidence supports material misstatements or omissions, purchaser reliance, and resulting damages.
- Consolidation is appropriate when actions involve common factual and legal questions and overlapping proof, but efficiency cannot override fairness; courts must consider prejudice and may mitigate it through trial management and instructions.

## Conclusion

The court refused to end the consolidated cases at the summary-judgment stage, holding that a jury could reasonably find discriminatory and deceptive conduct in the home-sale and financing transactions and that unresolved disputes over intent, misrepresentation, and damages required trial.


M & T Mortg. Corp. v. White, 736 F. Supp. 2d 538 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)