Tag Archives: lack standing

Georgia Court Dismisses RESPA, TILA, and HOEPA Claims

Posted on by

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

Plaintiffs Reginald and Jamela Mitchell claimed that the defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. and MERS violated the Truth-in-Lending Act (“TILA”), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), the Home Ownership Equity Protection Act (“HOEPA”) and state law by commencing foreclosure proceedings against Plaintiffs’ home.

After consideration of the plaintiff’s assertions, the court concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

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.

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.

Court Dismissed Minn. Stat. § 559.01 Claims

Posted on by

The court in deciding Lubbers v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. (D. Minn., 2013) dismissed plaintiff’s claims.

Plaintiffs sought to invalidate the foreclosure of the mortgage on their home. Plaintiffs asserted three claims against defendant: (1) quiet-title, to determine adverse claims under Minn. Stat. § 559.01; (2) declaratory judgment; and (3) slander of title.

Plaintiffs alleged the following causes of action:

In count I, plaintiffs asserted a quiet title action pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 559.01, and sought a determination regarding Deutsche Bank’s adverse interest in the Property. According to plaintiffs, in a quiet title action, the burden of proof was on the mortgagee asserting an adverse interest in the property to show that both record title and legal title concur and co-exist at the same time and in the same entity to foreclose by advertisement.

In count II, plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment under Minn. Stat. § 555.02 that the various assignments of mortgage, notices of pendency, and powers of attorney were all void, and that plaintiffs remain the owner of the property in fee title.

Count III, plaintiff alleged slander of title, plaintiffs asserted that Wilford, acted at direction of Deutsche Bank, drafted and recorded documents that were false and not executed by legally authorized persons, and that Deutsche Bank knew that the documents were false because unauthorized persons executed the power of attorneys and the assignments of mortgage.

As relief, plaintiffs sought: (1) a determination of adverse interest in the Property; (2) a declaration that the sheriff’s certificate of sale, the various assignments of mortgage, notices of pendency, and powers of attorney are all void; (3) a declaration that plaintiffs remain the owner of the Property in fee title; and (4) money damages. Id., Prayer for Relief.

After considering the plaintiff’s claims, this court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Since Bank was the Note-Holder it was a Person Entitled to Enforce the Note Pursuant to R.C. 1303.31(A)(1)

Posted on by

The court in deciding Bank of Am., N.A. v. Pasqualone, 2013-Ohio-5795 (Ohio Ct. App., Franklin County, 2013) affirmed the decision of the lower court.

The court found that the promissory note was a negotiable instrument subject to relevant provisions of R.C. Chapter 1303 because it contained a promise to pay the lender the amount of $100,000, plus interest, and did not require any other undertakings that would render the note nonnegotiable.

Further, the court found that since the bank was the holder of the note it was a person entitled to enforce the note pursuant to R.C. 1303.31(A)(1). Based on the authorization, the note became payable to the bank as an identified person and, because the bank was the identified person in possession of the note, it was the holder of the note.

Lastly, as the property owner’s defenses to the mortgage foreclosure did not fit the criteria of a denial, defense, or claim in recoupment under R.C. 1303.36 or R.C. 1303.35, the bank’s right to payment and to enforce the obligation was not subject to the owner’s alleged meritorious defenses.