Tag Archives: stay foreclosure

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.

Washington Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s State Consumer Protection Act Claim

Posted on by

The court in deciding Massey v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148402 (W.D. Wash. 2013) granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

Plaintiff Cindy T. Massey claimed that Northwest Trustee’s conduct in connection with the nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings on her property violated the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”). Ms. Massey had not filed an opposition to Northwest Trustee’s motion for summary judgment. The court considered Northwest Trustee’s motion, all submissions filed in support, the applicable law, and the balance of the record. After considering the arguments, the court eventually granted Northwest Trustee’s motion.

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.

Michigan Court Dismisses Fraud & RESPA Claims

Posted on by

The court in deciding Neroni v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149190 ( E.D. Mich. 2013) eventually granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs alleged claims against defendant [Bank of America, N.A.] 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 responded by asserting 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 asserted that plaintiffs had failed to adequately plead claims for fraud or breach of contract relating to defendant’s legal standing to foreclose on Plaintiffs’ Home.

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

Michigan Court Finds That Defendants Were Not Acting Under Color of State Law

Posted on by

The court in deciding El-Jabazwe v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149854 ( E.D. Mich. Oct. 18, 2013) denied the plaintiff’s motions and granted the defendants’ motions.

Plaintiff’s complaint listed the following Counts: 42 U.S.C. §1983 (Count I); 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (Count II); 42 U.S.C. § 1983: refusing or neglecting to prevent (Count III); Malicious Abuse of Process (Count IV); 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 (Count V); Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Count VI); and Mail Fraud (Count VIII). The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s state-law claims (Counts IV and VI) on March 6, 2013.

The court found that the plaintiff’s argument under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) rested solely on conclusory statements. The court found plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is similarly deficient. The court noted that plaintiff wholly failed to meet the evidentiary burdens required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) and 56(a), and thus the court denied both of Plaintiff’s motions. Lastly, the court found that even when construing the facts in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, Counts I and III must be dismissed against the defendants, as they were not acting under color of state law.

Consequently, pursuant to E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(f)(2), the court ordered that the motions be resolved on the briefs submitted, without oral argument. The court then denied the plaintiff’s motions and granted the defendants’ motions.

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.