Judges: Posner
Filed: Jul. 19, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit _ No. 16-2475 TERENCE S. CHANCELLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 14 C 7712 — Sharon Johnson Coleman, Judge. _ SUBMITTED JULY 5, 2017 — DECIDED JULY 19, 2017 _ Before POSNER, KANNE, and SYKES, Circuit Judges. POSNER, Circuit Judge. The plaintiff reached a
Summary: In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit _ No. 16-2475 TERENCE S. CHANCELLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 14 C 7712 — Sharon Johnson Coleman, Judge. _ SUBMITTED JULY 5, 2017 — DECIDED JULY 19, 2017 _ Before POSNER, KANNE, and SYKES, Circuit Judges. POSNER, Circuit Judge. The plaintiff reached an..
More
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 16-2475 TERENCE S. CHANCELLOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 14 C 7712 — Sharon Johnson Coleman, Judge. ____________________ SUBMITTED JULY 5, 2017 — DECIDED JULY 19, 2017 ____________________ Before POSNER, KANNE, and SYKES, Circuit Judges. POSNER, Circuit Judge. The plaintiff reached an oral agree- ment to settle a litigation arising out of a home mortgage loan to him, but the defendants insisted that as part of the settlement he would have to release any claims he had against another bank, and also a trust company, neither of which had been a party to the litigation. Although the dis- trict judge agreed with the defendants’ position, it hasn’t been proved that anyone had told the plaintiff during the 2 No. 16-2475 settlement conference that by agreeing to the settlement he would also be releasing any claim he might have against the two nonparties to the litigation. Because there was no evi- dentiary proceeding, there was no basis for the judge’s de- ciding that the plaintiff had agreed to release the claims against the nonparties. The judgment must therefore be va- cated and the case remanded for a factual inquiry into the parties’ disagreement.