Mortg Sample Clauses

Mortg. Corp., 419 F.3d 107, 110 (2d Cir. 2005) (discussing parties’ sophistication); Colo. Interstate Corp. v. CIT Grp./Equip. Fin., Inc., 993 F.2d 743, 748 (10th Cir. 1993) (casting such clauses’ enforceability as “essential” to obtaining the parties’ desired outcome); Am. Computer Trust Leasing v. Xxxx Xxxxxxx Implement Co., 763 F. Supp. 1473, 1484 (D. Minn. 1991), aff’d, 967 F.2d 1208 (8th Cir. 1992) (noting desire to honor parties’ unconditional promises); Xxxxx. Sav. Fund Soc. v. Deseret Mgmt. Corp., 632 F. Supp. 129, 136 (E.D. Pa. 1985) (opining that failure to give such clauses full effect “would effectively reconstruct the contract contrary to the intent of the parties, which reconstruction would be impermissible”); Xxxxx & Co., LLC x. Xxxxxxx USD Med. Ctr., No. 08-CV-4596, 2011 WL 941195, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2011) (noting that enforcement of these clauses reflects the general principle of freedom of contract). 23Paragraph 8.1 required the Company to follow strict procedures prior to a for-cause termination. Pursuant to this paragraph, Xx. Xxxxx would “not be deemed to have been terminated for Cause” unless and until the Company complied with these guidelines. Emp’t Agrmt. at 8. consequences of its prior decisions. Whether general equitable principles can limit an unambiguous ERISA plan has been a contentious question for some time. Over the past decade, a circuit split developed on the issue; the Third and Ninth Circuits opined that equitable doctrines could xxxxx an ERISA plan, whereas the Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits espoused the opposite view. CGI Techs. & Solutions Inc. x. Xxxx, 683 F.3d 1113, 1124 (9th Cir. 2012), rev’d, 133 S. Ct. 1995 (2013) ; US

Mortg. History Owner Occupied Max Loan Amt LTV / CLTV Min FICO MAX D/R (last 12 mos) BK History