Editor: David Reiss
Brooklyn Law School

February 11, 2013

Maryland District Court Dismisses Mortgagor’s Claims to Invalidate Foreclosure

By Abigail Pugliese

In Parillon v. Fremont Investment & Loan, et al., Civil No. L-09-3352, 2010 WL 1328425  (D. Md. March 25, 2010), the court granted bank/MERS’s motion to dismiss with respect to all of mortgagor claims, because Plaintiff mortgagor “filed a conclusory complaint that fails to state any grounds upon which the loan to him might be invalidated or the foreclosure enjoined.”

In 2006, Plaintiff obtained a loan from Defendant Fremont Investment & Loan (“Fremont”) and granted Defendants a lien against his residence, with Defendants Fremont as Trustee and MERS as beneficiary. Defendant Litton Loan Servicing LP (“Litton”) sent Plaintiff a Notice of Foreclosure, with the foreclosing parties being Defendant HSBC and Defendant Ace Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan Trust. Plaintiff filed a complaint and Defendants Fremont, Litton, MERS, and Wells Fargo moved to dismiss.

Defendant Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss was granted, because the complaint contained “no specific information regarding Wells Fargo’s role in the events at issue.”

With respect to all other Defendants, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim for quiet title because Plaintiff “executed a deed of trust granting the mortgagee an interest in his property,” and so his residence was not vested in him alone. The court similarly dismissed Plaintiff’s rescission based on fraud claim, breach of contract claim, and his claims under the Maryland Protection of Homeowners in Foreclosure Act and the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, because all failed to allege any elements or facts regarding such claims.

Meanwhile, Plaintiff’s claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act was dismissed, because it “specifically exempts defendants attempting to collect their own debts, mortgagors, and mortgage servicing companies.” Plaintiff’s Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act and Truth in Lending Act claims were also dismissed because they were (1) time-bared with respect to damage and (2) conclusory with respect to equitable relief.

Lastly, the court dismissed Plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim, because “Maryland courts don’t recognize a separate tort of breach of fiduciary duty.”

| Permalink