Tag Archives: foreclose

Michigan Court Rejects TILA and RESPA Claims in Granting Summary Judgment

Posted on by

The court in deciding Morton v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. (W.D. Mich., 2013) ultimately concluded that the moving defendants are entitled to judgment on all plaintiff’s claims as a matter of law.

Plaintiff asserted that none of the defendants had standing to foreclose on the mortgage. He also alleged that defendants were liable for violations of the Truth In Lending Act (TILA) and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). Defendants Bank of America, MERS, and Crain had moved for judgment on the pleadings, but supported their motion with documents beyond the pleadings. Therefore, this court elected to treat the motion as one for summary judgment under Rule 56.

Plaintiff’s complaint identifies two federal claims, in addition to claims arising under Michigan law. The complaint mentions the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-1667f. Plaintiff also purports to assert a claim under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2617. The court determined that neither the TILA claim nor the RESPA claim had merit. Plaintiff also asserted three purported state-law claims, which the court deemed to be both redundant and lacking merit. Accordingly, the court recommended that the entry of a summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

Hawaii Court Holds that Debtor had Standing to Enforce Note and Mortgage Under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 490:3-301(ii) Even Though it was a Non-Holder

Posted on by

The court in deciding 1250 Oceanside Partners v. Katcher, 2013 Bankr. (D. Haw. 2013) recommended that the district court enter a decree of foreclosure in favor of the debtor.

The debtor in possession of 1250 Oceanside Partners sought to enforce a promissory note and foreclose a mortgage made by defendants, the Katchers. Oceanside sought summary judgment, the Katchers argued that the court lacked jurisdiction, that Oceanside was not entitled to foreclose, and that if it was entitled to foreclose, it was not entitled to a deficiency judgment.

The court found that there was no dispute as to any material fact and that Oceanside was entitled to foreclose on the property, but it was not entitled to a deficiency judgment against the Katchers at this stage in the litigation.

The court held that the debtor had standing to enforce the note and mortgage under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 490:3-301(ii) even though it was a non-holder, as it was in possession of the note and had the rights of a holder. The court also found that the mortgagors’ defenses to foreclosure were based entirely on debtor’s failure to develop a project as the purchase contract required, but the terms of the purchase contract provided that the mortgagors’ claims against debtor would be decided separately from debtor’s foreclosure claims. Moreover, the debtor’s claim for a deficiency judgment related to monetary damages or costs and thus, was subject to arbitration under the agreement.

Georgia Court Dismisses TILA and RESPA Claims Brought by Plaintiff

Posted on by

The court in deciding Mitchell v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. (N.D. Ga. Sept. 25, 2013) granted the motion to dismiss proffered by the defendant.

The first enumerated cause of action in Plaintiffs’ complaint was a claim for fraud. Plaintiffs argued that their original mortgage lender, Accredited, engaged in a practice of filing false prospectus supplements with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Plaintiffs’ complaint also included a claim for wrongful foreclosure.

Next, the plaintiffs asserted that Deutsche Bank and MERS had “unclean hands” as they failed to make certain disclosures required by TILA. Plaintiffs also asserted that the defendants or their predecessors in interest violated RESPA in a number of ways. Plaintiffs’ complaint also included a claim for fraud in the inducement. Moreover, the plaintiffs’ complaint raised a claim for quiet title under O.C.G.A. § 23-3-40 and O.C.G.A. § 23-3-60 et seq. Lastly, the plaintiffs’ complaint raised a claim for fraudulent assignment.

Ultimately the court concluded that the plaintiffs’ complaint failed to state a viable claim for relief. Accordingly, this court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint.

Ohio Appellate Court Affirms Judgment in Favor of Arch Bay Holdings

Posted on by

The court in deciding Arch Bay Holdings, LLC v. Brown, 2013-Ohio-5453 (Ohio Ct. App., Montgomery County, 2013) found that the lower court did not err in confirming the sheriff’s sale, thus the judgment of the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court was affirmed.

Daniel Lee Brown appealed the lower court’s final order confirming a post-foreclosure sheriff’s sale of his residence and distributing the proceeds. First, he contended that the lower court erred in finding that appellee – Arch Bay Holdings – had standing to foreclose. Second, Brown claimed that the trial court erred in dismissing his counterclaims. Third, he asserted that the trial court erred in confirming the sheriff’s sale where no appraisal was performed.

Upon review, this court promptly disposed of Brown’s arguments about the lower court’s dismissal of his counterclaims and Arch Bay’s standing to foreclose. This court also determined that arguments about the counterclaims were barred by res judicata because Brown could have raised them in the prior appeal, which he filed after the trial court dismissed the counterclaims and filed a decree of foreclosure. Further, this court reviewed the evidence and upheld the lower court’s finding that Arch Bay had standing because it possessed the note and mortgage when it filed suit. Thus this court affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

California Court Rejects Improper Pooling and Servicing Agreement Argument Brought by Plaintiffs

Posted on by

The court in deciding Sollenne v. United States Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 2013 U.S. Dist., (S.D. Cal., 2013) dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims.

Plaintiffs alleged three causes of action: 1) quiet title; 2) declaratory relief to determine the validity of the deed of trust on the date the note was assigned and to determine if any defendant has authority to foreclose; and 3) injunctive relief to stop further collection activity, including the sale of the property.

Plaintiffs’ desired remedies also include a request for an order compelling the defendants to transfer or release legal title and any alleged encumbrances, and possession of the property to plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs listed the following deficiencies which they contended rendered invalid any security interest in the deed of trust: 1) the separation of title, ownership and interest in the note and deed of trust; 2) the lack of assignments to or from the intervening entities when the loan was sold; 3) the failure to assign and transfer the beneficial interest in the DOT to Defendants in accordance with the PSA; 4) the failure to endorse, assign, and transfer the note to USBNA in accordance with the PSA and California law; 5) that there were no assignments of beneficiary or endorsements of the note to each intervening entity; and 6) Defendants violated terms of the PSA.

After considering the plaintiffs’ arguments, this court dismissed the claims premised upon the securitization of the loan and violations of the PSA as well as the plaintiffs’ remaining claims.

Georgia Court Dismisses Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq Claim

Posted on by

The court in deciding Morrison v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. (N.D. Ga. Dec. 16, 2013) eventually granted Bank of America, N.A.’s motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff defaulted on her loan obligations after taking a loan from bank of America. Plaintiff asserted that she “suspended” payments because the defendant failed to properly identify the person that was the holder in due course of legal title or the ability to enforce the note under O.C.G.A. § 11-3-309.

Plaintiff asserted that foreclosure would be wrongful because the defendant lacked standing to foreclose on the property, also that the defendant violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq (“FDCPA“), and Georgia law by failing to validate the debt and provide an accounting of plaintiff’s mortgage. Lastly, plaintiff asserted that the defendant failed to obtain Secretary of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development approval to be designated as Foreclosure Commissioner, in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 3754.

Plaintiff also sought to have the security deed and note declared fully satisfied, to enjoin foreclosure of the property, to compel production of the plaintiff’s note and any assignments, and to require the defendant to validate the alleged debt. Bank of America moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state a claim.

The court considered the plaintiff’s assertions, and categorically dismissed them in granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

California Court Holds that the Securitization of Mortgage Loan did not Nullify Rights Granted Under Deed, Including the Right to Foreclose

Posted on by

The court in deciding Rivac v. Ndex West LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. (N.D. Cal. Dec. 17, 2013) granted the motion to dismiss tendered by the defendant.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint that alleged eight causes of action including; (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of implied agreement, (3) slander of title, (4) wrongful foreclosure, (5) violation of § 17200, (6) violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq. (TILA) (7) violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2605 (RESPA), and (8) violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. (FDCPA).

After considering the plaintiff’s contentions, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The court then held that the securitization of borrowers’ mortgage loan did not nullify any rights granted under a deed of trust, including the right to foreclose against the borrowers’ real property upon the borrowers’ default.

Further, the absence of the original promissory note in the nonjudicial foreclosure did not render the foreclosure invalid. Moreover, the court held that mere allegations that documents related to the deed of trust were robo-signed by persons who had no authority to execute the documents had no effect on the validity of the foreclosure process.

Lastly, the court held that there was no breach of the deed of trust since the beneficiary was expressly authorized to sell the underlying note, and the borrowers themselves did not perform under the deed of trust.