by defendants in order to receive the payoff letter and Horn did not have an opportunity to opt out, then the Facsimile Fee was improperly excluded from the disclosed finance charge. Compare Veale v. Citibank, F.S.B., 85 F.3d 577, 579 (11th Cir.1996) (noting that although a Federal Express fee can be considered part of the finance charge when required by the lender, it may be excluded from the finance charge under TILA where a borrower can opt out from use of the courier and obtain the documents by another means which does not require a fee) and Scott v. IndyMac Bank, FSB, No. 03 C 6489, 2005 WL 730961, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Mar. 28, 2005) (courier fee not part of finance charge where not required or retained by creditor) with Rodash v. AIB Mortgage Co., 16 F.3d 1142, 1147-48 (11th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>) and Bank of N.Y. v. Mann, No. 02 C 9265, 2004
holding lender might be held responsible for buyers alleged damages where facts indicated lenders active participation in the sale of the residence or the existence of a special relationship between the lender and the borrower holding that it was not improper for a lender to halt the proposed settlement and discounted payment of plaintiffs loan when the lender believed the loan would otherwise be paid in full holding lender loses right to a premium when it elects to accelerate the debt and declining to allow lender to avoid the consequences of its choice of acceleration holding that the fcras provision that a lender may only use and obtain consumer credit information for the purpose of making a firm offer of credit requires that the lender offer something of value as an extension of credit alone holding that federal express fee required by lender was a transaction imposed by the lender as incident to the extension of credit and needed to be disclosed within the finance charge