Tag Archives: motion to dismiss

New Jersey Court Finds that Plaintiff had Both Possession of the Original Note and Assignment

Posted on by

The court in deciding Assets Recovery 23, LLC v. Odoemene, 2013 N.J. Super. (App.Div., 2013) this court affirmed the ruling of the lower court that the plaintiff was permitted to foreclose.

In this foreclosure matter, defendants Emmanuel C. Odoemene and Doris D. Odoemene appealed from a June 11, 2012 Chancery Division order, which granted summary judgment to plaintiff Assets Recovery 23, LLC and dismissed defendants’ answer, and denied defendants’ cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. After considering the plaintiff’s contentions this court affirmed the decision of the lower court.

On appeal, defendants merely reiterated that plaintiff lacked standing because it did not physically possess the note at the time it filed the foreclosure complaint. They also argued that the April 2011 assignment did not properly assign the note; however, the court found this argument to be lacking.

This court also found that the evidence in this case clearly established that plaintiff had standing when it filed the foreclosure complaint. Here, the plaintiff had both possession of the original note and an assignment of the mortgage and note prior to filing the complaint.

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.

Texas Court Dismisses Claims Centered Around FDCPA and TDCPA Violations

Posted on by

The court in deciding Warren v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. (N.D. Tex., 2013) granted defendant’s motion to dismiss all of the claims brought by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff alleged that MERS could not assign the note or deed of trust because it was not a party to, and never had a beneficial interest in, the note. Plaintiff further alleged that the note was “securitized”, thus defendant was not the owner of the note or deed of trust and had no right to foreclose on the Property. Plaintiff asserted a claim to quiet title and requested declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to restrain defendant from foreclosing and evicting him from the Property.

Although the complaint did not formally list any substantive claims, plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief contained allegations that may liberally construed as claims for wrongful foreclosure and violations of the Tex. Const. art. XVI, § 50(a)(6)(B), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and the Texas Debt Collection Practices Act (TDCPA).

Plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to notify him of the pending foreclosure sale, since the foreclosure notice was “returned as undeliverable” by the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). Before filing suit, he sent the defendant a request “for a verification of the debt” pursuant to the federal FDCPA and the TDCPA. Plaintiff believed that pursuant to the FDCPA, the foreclosure could not have been conducted until 30 days had passed after the date he sent his request.

Plaintiff further claimed that the defendant could not foreclose because there were defects in the original loan financing and the original foreclosure order and because defendant failed to “physically post” a copy of the foreclosure sale notice at “the courthouse” where the sale was to take place.

This court considered the plaintiff’s contentions and eventually found them without merit.

Texas Court Rejects Break-in-the-Chain Claim

Posted on by

The court in deciding Martinez v. Wilmington Trust Co., 2013 U.S. Dist., (W.D. Tex. 2013) found that plaintiffs’ petition failed to state a claim to which relief could be granted and dismissed the action.

Plaintiffs argued that the 2005 assignment was “fraudulent and forged,” “manufactured,” and “void and invalid,” constituting a “break in the chain.” Plaintiffs also claimed that defendant had no standing to foreclose on the instrument.

Plaintiffs alleged the 2005 assignment from Washington Mutual to Wells Fargo was “suspicious” due to the five year delay in recordation and because “Washington Mutual was bankrupt in August of 2010 and no longer existed in 2010.” According to plaintiffs, the 2005 assignment was flawed because it was recorded “some twelve years after the original transaction.”

Defendant argued that the plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed because plaintiffs lacked standing to complain of any alleged defects in the assignments, and, standing aside, plaintiffs’ claims lack viability. Plaintiffs argued that defendant’s motion was moot. This court ultimately found that the defendant’s motion to dismiss had merit and granted it.

“Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics”

Posted on by

Judge Chesler issued an Opinion in The Prudential Insurance Company of America et al. v. Bank of America, National Association et al., No. 13-1586 (Apr. 17, 2014), deciding the motion to dismiss the Complaint. Claims relating to fraud, a theory of underwriting abandonment and the 1933 Securities Act survived the motion to dismiss. The Court summarized the case as follows:

In a nutshell, this case arises from a dispute over the sale of certain residential mortgage-backed securities (“RMBS”) by Defendants [various Bank of America parties , including Merrill Lynch parties] to Plaintiffs [various Prudential parties]. The Complaint alleges that Defendants obtained the underlying mortgages, created the securitizations based on them, issued “offering Materials” for their sale, and sold them to Plaintiffs.

*     *     *

The Complaint alleges a variety of statistics in support of its claims. It is often not clear, however, what the basis for a particular statistic is. (1-2)

The Court’s description of the Complaint is pretty damning. But the Court does not find that the poor use of statistics in the Complaint is fatal to all of its claims.

Here are some highlights of the Court’s assessment of the Complaint:

  • “this Court does not find that the Analysis, as described in the Complaint, is such obvious junk research that it fails to constitute relevant factual allegations which, considered along with the other factual allegations in the Complaint, make plausible certain of the assertions of misrepresentation.” (8)
  • “The Complaint alleges that Defendants knowingly misrepresented that they would properly transfer title to the underlying mortgage loans to the particular trusts. The sole factual allegation made in support is: ‘Prudential’s forensic loan-level analysis revealed that across the Offerings Prudential tested, 43% of the Mortgage Loans were not properly assigned to the Trusts.’ Yes, if true, that is an astonishing fact– but there is not even a suggestion in the Complaint of a theory of how this gives rise to the inference of a knowing misrepresentation.” (13)
  • “The Complaint has so little explanation of the AVM [automated valuation model] methodology that this Court has no idea of how the computer used what information to generate property appraisals.” (15)

Notwithstanding the Court’s critique, it ends up finding the Complaint persuasive in the main:

The claim that Defendants’ representations about the underwriting practices and standards used in the issuance of the underlying mortgage loans were fraudulent because of a systemic abandonment of such underwriting standards is perhaps the central claim in this case. in brief, this Court has carefully examined the Complaint and finds that it states an abundance of factual allegations supporting this claim. (21)

The drafters of the complaint might reckon, ‘no harm no foul’ from the Court’s conclusion. But the rest of us might better see this as their having dodged a bullet, a bullet that the Plaintiffs’ attorneys shot at themselves. Mark Twain had said that “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” Not sure what he would have said about those in this Complaint — damned statistics?

Defendants Could Not Show They Were not Debt Collectors as Defined by 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692a(6)(F)

Posted on by

The court in deciding Dias v. Fannie Mae, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181584 (D. Haw., 2013) rejected all but one of the plaintiff’s claims.

The court found that the plaintiff’s Haw. Rev. Stat. § 667-5 defective assignment claims against defendants failed because the mortgage gave the requisite authority.

The court found that a claim that no sale could be held pending a Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) modification failed because the mortgagor lacked standing. The false mortgage assignment claim failed because nothing showed a publicly recorded assignment was false. Likewise, the breach of contract claim for violating HAMP guidelines failed because the mortgagor had no such claim, no HAMP trial payment plan supported it, and she was not an intended beneficiary of any HAMP agreement between defendants and the U.S. Treasury.

However, the plaintiff’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692, claims survived because a defaulted debt was assigned, so defendants could not show they were not debt collectors, under 15 U.S.C.S. § 1692a(6)(F).

Illinois Court Rejects Plaintiff’s Claims of FDCPA, Fourteenth Amendment, Mortgage Foreclosure Law, and Assignment Violations

Posted on by

The court in deciding Gonzalez v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2014 U.S. Dist, 67 (N.D. Ill. 2014) granted defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff (Gonzalez) filed a four-count complaint against Bank of America and MERS seeking damages arising from alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq. (Count I); void assignment of mortgage in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count II); lack of authority to assign mortgage (Count III); and, against Bank of America only, violation of the Illinois Mortgage Foreclosure Law (Count IV).

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Ultimately the court granted defendant’s motion.