| ICSC Legal Database - Cases | Monday, February 22, 1999 05:01 PM |
| Citation: |
| Amey, Inc. v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc., 758 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir. 1985), cert. denied 89 L.Ed.2d 912, 106 S.Ct. |
| Issue: |
| Whether bank's practice of requiring its customers seeking mortgage financing to pay legal fees for attorneys |
| selected by bank to examine title or render opinions, constituted an exclusive dealing arrangement in violation of |
| the Sherman Act or an illegal tying arrangement in violation of the Sherman Act. |
| Facts: |
| This is a suit by purchasers of a real estate property against a bank and law firm alleging that the plaintiffs were |
| forced to use the bank's choice Of law firm or title services in title opinions at an increased cost to purchasers. |
| Purchasers applied to a bank for financing which was made available, provided that the purchaser seek a real |
| estate title search and opinion from the Henderson law firm or, in the alternative, pay the bank for the same title |
| search and opinion which would be provided by the He nderson firm. A preliminary opinion of title was rendered |
| covering the period up to October 10, 1976. On November 3, 1976, a lien in excess of $32,000 was filed against |
| the property by Internal Revenue Service. No one requested that the Henderson firm mak e a title search |
| covering the period subsequent to October 10, 1976. The purchasers brought a negligence action against the |
| Henderson law firm and the title insurance company and the Circuit Court granted summary judgment for the |
| defendants. Subsequently, the purchasers filed the present action in Federal District Court under the Clayton |
| and Sherman Acts alleging price fixing, exclusive dealing and a monopoly in violation of the antitrust laws. |
| District Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant s. Purchasers appealed. |
| Holding: |
| Affirmed. Where a bank passes on to the borrower its attorney's fees pursuant to mortgage finance transaction, |
| such is not an antitrust violation. In the absence of conduct causing a restraint of trade or the effectuation of a |
| monopoly, an individual has unfettered discretion in deciding with whom he will do business. Price fixing |
| agreements and arrangements are unlawful per se. However, the exchange of price information among |
| competitors is not a per se violation of the antitrust laws. (Note: This is an exhaustive opinion treating the |
| standing of a person to institute suit, application of the antitrust statute of limitations, the nature of tying |
| arrangements, exclusive dealing, price fixing, customer allocation agreements and exchange o f price |
| Classification 1: |
| Antitrust |
| 00128 - Legal Update - Winter 1986 |
|
