Tag Archives: Mortgage Electronic Recording System

California Court Dismisses All 12 Claims

Posted on by

The court in deciding Scott v. Saxon Mortg. Servs., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146988 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2013) granted defendant’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend in part.

Plaintiff’s brought 12 claims against defendants. Plaintiff’s first claim for violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 predicated on violation of California Civil Code section 2923.5 and Plaintiff’s ninth claim for violation of California Civil Code section 2923.5. The court dismissed both without leave to amend.

Plaintiff’s second claim for breach of good faith and fair dealing was also dismissed with leave to amend; the third claim for slander of title was likewise dismissed without leave to amend.

Plaintiff’s fourth claim for “alter ago liability” and fifth claim for breach of contract were both dismissed without leave to amend. Unlike the former claims, plaintiff’s sixth claim for unjust enrichment was dismissed with leave to amend. However, plaintiff’s seventh claim for violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 was dismissed without leave to amend. Plaintiff’s eighth claim for predatory lending and violation of TILA were dismissed without leave to amend.

Plaintiff’s tenth claim for defamation and eleventh claim for false light were also dismissed without leave to amend. Lastly, plaintiff’s twelfth claim to void or cancel assignment of the deed of trust and the thirteenth claim for cancellation of a voidable contract were dismissed without leave to amend

California Court Finds That Defendants Complied With Statutory Mandate That the Notice of Default Include Sufficient Contact Information

Posted on by

The court in deciding Wagma Safi v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147005 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2013) ultimately granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.

In her first cause of action, the plaintiff asked for declaratory relief in the form of a judicial declaration that the plaintiff had the right to reinstate the loan for which the deed of trust was collateral, and that the defendants were required to provide her with the information necessary to do so.

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s first cause of action for declaratory relief. Despite defendants’’ alleged refusal to provide plaintiff with information regarding the loan, their compliance with the notice requirements of section 2924c(b)(1) provided plaintiff with sufficient information to exercise her right to reinstate the loan.

In her second cause of action, plaintiff asked for declaratory relief, contending that “Bank of America was the sole beneficiary under the deed of trust and that MERS had no authority to transfer or assign any rights under the deed” Plaintiff alleged that MERS signed the deed of trust “solely as nominee” and thus lacked the authority to assign its interest to a third party.

The court found that plaintiff made no showing that would call into question the validity of MERS’ assignment. The court found that she failed to state a claim and the second cause of action was dismissed.

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.

Supreme Court of Vermont Denied a Motion Requesting a Declaration That U.S. Bank Had Violated Vermont’s Consumer Fraud Act (CFA)

Posted on by

The court in deciding Dernier v. Mortgage Network, Inc., 2013 VT 96 (Vt. 2013) reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the counts that alleged irregularities in the transfer of the note and mortgage unconnected to the PSA. The court also partially remanded certain claims.

Plaintiff borrowers brought suit against defendant bank in which they sought a declaratory judgment that defendant had no right to enforce either a note or a mortgage and that defendant had violated the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA).

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal for failure to state a claim, of their action for (1) a declaratory judgment that defendant U.S. Bank National Association cannot enforce the mortgage and promissory note for the debt associated with plaintiffs’ purchase of their house based on irregularities and fraud in the transfer of both instruments, (2) a declaration that U.S. Bank has violated Vermont’s Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) by asserting its right to enforce the mortgage and note, and (3) attorney’s fees and costs under the CFA.

Plaintiffs also appealed the trial court’s failure to enter a default judgment against defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS). After considering the merits of both claims, the court ultimately affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Georgia Court Dismisses Wrongful Foreclosure Claim

Posted on by

The court in deciding Bowman v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149660 (N.D. Ga. 2013) eventually granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff’s complaint was wide-ranging and repetitive, the gravamen of the complaint was a wrongful foreclosure claim which was premised on plaintiff’s allegations that: (1) Castle Rock Trustee was not the “secured creditor,” (2) the actual “secured creditor” was not identified to plaintiff in any notice, (3) the Castle Rock Trustee did not send notice of the November 6, 2012, foreclosure sale to plaintiff, (4) the assignments were invalid, and (5) the discharge of the underlying debt in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case precluded foreclosure.

The court eventually held that plaintiff had fraudulently joined the LLC did not defeat diversity; the value of the property was the appropriate benchmark for the amount in controversy and there was no dispute that tax records value the property at $188,900. The court also found that plaintiff’s Chapter 7 discharge did not bar defendants from initiating foreclosure proceedings against the property nor did the Chapter 7 discharge render “false” defendants description that plaintiff had failed to pay the mortgage debt.

The court also found that plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim for wrongful foreclosure due to errors in the Foreclosure Notice where the Notice was sent to the property address, which was authorized under the statute, and plaintiff had not alleged that he requested the Notice be sent to an alternate address.

After considering the merits of both claims, the court ultimately agreed with the defendant and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and dismissed with prejudice.

Court Dismisses Plaintiffs’ RESPA Claims Because Defendant Was Not Under Legal Obligation to Respond to Plaintiffs

Posted on by

The court in deciding Neroni v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149190 ( E.D. Mich. Oct. 17, 2013) granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6).

Plaintiffs alleged several claims in their complaint against Defendant for infringement of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA“) (Counts I–IV), common law fraud (Count V), common law silent fraud (Count VI), and common law breach of contract (Count VII).

Defendant asserted that plaintiffs’ RESPA claims should be dismissed because (1) defendant had no legal obligation under RESPA to respond or, alternatively, (2) plaintiffs failed to plead any actual damages related to their RESPA claims.

Defendant further asserts that plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead claims for fraud or breach of contract relating to defendant’s legal standing to foreclose on plaintiffs’ Home. After considering both sides’ arguments, the court agreed with the defendant’s reasoning and dismissed the case.

Missouri Court Dismisses Predatory Lending & TILA Claims

Posted on by

The court in deciding Fleming v. Bank of Am., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150758 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 21, 2013) found the plaintiff’s argument and complaint to be filled with legal conclusions and disjointed, conclusory allegations. The court noted that the complaint frequently referred simply to “Defendant” or “Defendants” with no indication as to which specific defendant was implicated, and sometimes seemed to confuse “Plaintiff” with “Defendant.”

Plaintiff asserted the following eight claims: (1) predatory lending and violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq.; (2) servicer fraud; (3) violations of the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (“HOEPA”)’s amendments to TILA, §§ 1639 et seq.; (4) violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq.; (5) breach of fiduciary duty; (6) identity theft; (7) civil liability under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1964; and (8) quiet title to real property.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), defendants moved to dismiss Fleming’s complaint for failure to state a claim. After considering the plaintiff’s arguments the court ultimately granted defendants Bank of America and MERSCorp Holdings, Inc.’s motion to dismiss.