Tag Archives: Downstream Litigation

California Court Dismisses Show-Me-the-Note Claim

Posted on by

The court in deciding Newman v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147562 (E.D. Cal. 2013) granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the complaint.

Plaintiff (Newman) argued that he was not challenging the authorization to foreclose, nor was he requiring defendants to “produce the note.” Rather, he was challenging whether the correct entity is initiating foreclosure. He claimed that BONY did not have the right to enforce the mortgage because it did not own the loan, the note, or the mortgage.

Plaintiff alleged claims for declaratory relief, quasi-contract, California Civil Code § 2923.5, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et. seq.) (“FDCPA”),California Business & Professions Code § 17200 (“UCL”), and negligence.

Defendants argue that dismissal is appropriate for several reasons. First, Newman could not bring an action to determine whether the person initiating the foreclosure was authorized to do so. Second, Newman’s allegations that the assignments of the deed of trust involved illegible signatures and “robo-signers” were irrelevant. Third, Newman had no standing to challenge any violations of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”).

After reviewing the arguments the court found that the claims for declaratory relief, quasi-contract, under Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5, and under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) failed because any claims that were based on violation of the pooling and servicing agreement were not viable, the borrower was estopped from arguing that the assignment violated the automatic stay, and the allegations of fraudulent assignments were insufficient and implausible.

The negligence claim also failed. The claim under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 (UCL) failed because the complaint did not state a claim for violation of the FDCPA, Cal. Penal Code § 532f(a)(4) could not have formed the basis of a UCL claim, and no violation of the Security First Rule was apparent.

Utah Court Dismisses HAMP, RICO, ECOA, RESPA & FDCPA Claims

Posted on by

The court in deciding Cornia v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149592 (D. Utah 2013) granted defendant’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs’ claims based on securitization, assignment to MERs, or “robo-signing,” were dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiffs’ complaint sought to quiet title in the property in plaintiffs’ names. As the basis for this relief, plaintiffs claimed that defendant (1) engaged in predatory lending, mail fraud, and wire fraud, (2) violated the Real Estate Settlement  Procedures Act (“RESPA”), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), Homeowners Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”), Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), the Utah Fraudulent Transfer Act and other statutes, regulations and unspecified consent orders, (3) fraudulently “robosigned,” the deeds of trust, and (4) securitized the loan.

Defendant moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) and also pursuant to FRCP 8(a) and 9(a)(2) to dismiss all Plaintiffs’ claims. After considering both arguments, the court granted defendant’s motion.

Texas Court Found That There Was no Gap in Chain of Title

Posted on by

The court in deciding Acosta v. Fannie Mae, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148066 (S.D. Tex. 2013) found that Under Section 51.0025 of the Texas Property Code, BOA had standing to foreclose as servicer of the loan.

Plaintiff asserted numerous claims arising from the foreclosure of his property.

The court found that the plaintiff had offered no summary judgment proof of any defect in the foreclosure proceedings. Acosta had also offered no summary judgment proof that BOA made any false or reckless statement to him upon which he relied to his harm; therefore, his claim for fraud or misrepresentation failed.

The court also found that BOA effectively became the “original lender” of Acosta’s loan by virtue of the merger with Countrywide. MERS, in its capacity as nominee, assigned the loan to BOA, as successor of the merger. Hence, there is no cognizable “gap in the chain of title” and BOA, therefore, had standing to foreclose.

The court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

Michigan Court Holds That Plaintiffs Were Not Subject to Double Liabilty on Their Debt and Thus Lacked Standing

Posted on by

The court in deciding Laues v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147912 ( E.D. Mich. Oct. 15, 2013) granted the defendant’s motion and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.

Plaintiffs Roy A. Laues and Kristin G. Laues (“the Laues”), preceded pro se, and filed a complaint claiming that the defendants fraudulently conveyed their property and improperly bifurcated their note and mortgage. The plaintiff’s sought to quiet title by extinguishing Defendants’ interest in the property. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). After considering the arguments the court ultimately granted the defendant’s motion.

Plaintiff alleged that MERS lacked authority to assign the mortgages, which would make the subsequent assignments invalid. MERS acted as nominee for lender AWL in assigning the mortgages. The court found that the plaintiffs were not a party to the assignment and as such was not threatened with double liability on the debt. Thus the court determined that they had no standing to challenge the assignment.

Michigan Court Dismisses State Claims Against 13 Defendants – Including Wells Fargo

Posted on by

The court in deciding Berry v. Main St. Bank, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147915 ( E.D. Mich. 2013) granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff Erik Berry initiated this action against thirteen defendants, including Defendant Wells Fargo, in state court seeking to redress alleged improprieties in the foreclosure of his home. Wells Fargo filed a motion seeking dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), or in the alternative, a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56. The court ultimately granted Wells Fargo’s motion and dismissed this action without prejudice.

The court found significant portions of the plaintiff’s complaint and response were dedicated to challenging the validity of the note, mortgage, and assignment. Although plaintiff relied on case law from several states other than Michigan, the court construed the complaint as alleging that (1) the splitting of the note and mortgage rendered the assignment from MERS acting as nominee for Main Street Bank to Wells Fargo defective, (2) because the assignment was invalid, no record chain of title evidencing the assignment of the mortgage existed as required by Michigan Compiled Laws § 600.3204(3), and (3) this chain of title defect deprived Wells Fargo of the authority to initiate foreclosure proceedings. The court rejected these arguments.

Wells Fargo’s motion to dismiss was ultimately granted and plaintiff’s claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Michigan Court Dismisses MCPA & HOEPA Claims

Posted on by

The court in deciding Huff v. Fannie Mae, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148053 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 2013) granted Bank of America’s motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff advanced a claim against defendants for quiet title (Count I) and alleged that defendants violated the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”) (Count II). In response plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Defendants asserted that all of the plaintiff’s claims should be barred either by res judicata or by the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations. Additionally, defendants argued that plaintiff’s quiet title claim; claims under the MCPA, and HOEPA lacked the factual allegations required for the court to find in plaintiff’s favor.

Plaintiff asserted that his complaint adequately plead claims against defendants for quiet title and violations of state and federal law. The court ultimately found that plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Illinois Court Finds Statute of Limitation Barres TILA & Fraud Claims

Posted on by

The court in deciding Gater v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149872 (N.D. Ill. 2013) granted Bank of America’s motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff alleged violations of Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601, et seq. claim (Count I), and an Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Fraud Act), 815 ILCS 505/1, et seq. claim (Count II). Bank of America moved to dismiss the action.

The court found that the statute of limitations periods barred plaintiff’s claims, thus the court granted the motion to dismiss.