Tag Archives: stay foreclosure

California Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Action Alleging Violations of RESPA, HOEPA, UCL & Negligent Misrepresentation

Posted on by

The court in deciding Monreal v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151731 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2013) granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims arising under federal law with prejudice, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims. Therefore, the remaining state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff alleged four causes of action against Deutsche Bank, GMAC, ETS, and MERS, including: (1) violation of the UCL; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) violation of RESPA; and (4) violation of HOEPA. In total plaintiff alleged two claims arising under federal law, RESPA and HOEPA, and two claims arising under state law, negligent misrepresentation and violation of the UCL.

In deciding the matter at hand, the court decided that their subject matter jurisdiction was premised on federal question jurisdiction over the claims arising under federal law, and supplemental jurisdiction over the pendent state-law claims.

Accordingly, because the court found that plaintiff failed to state a viable cause of action under either RESPA or HOEPA, the court dismissed the federal causes of action with prejudice, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

As a result, the Court did not address the merits of the plaintiffs’ state-law causes of action.

California Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Claims of Federal and State Law Violation

Posted on by

The court in deciding Brashears v. Bank of Am. Home Loans, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152478 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2013) dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint, which alleged violations of federal and state law in connection with the issuance of a mortgage loan.

Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants Bank of America, Countrywide Home Loans, The Bank of New York Mellon, ReconTrust Company, CWALT, Inc., and MERS alleging violations of federal and state law in connection with the issuance of a mortgage loan and the subsequent foreclosure of plaintiff’s property.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleged: (1) slander of title; (2) violation of California Penal Code § 470(b), (d); (3) violation of the California Civil Code §§ 2923.55, 2924.12 and 2924.17;  (4) intentional and negligent misrepresentation; (5) fraud, deceit and concealment; (6) violation of California Civil Code § 1572; (7) violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692g; (10) quiet title; (11) violation of California Business and Professions Code § 17200; (12) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code § 51; and (13) declaratory relief.

After considering the arguments alleged by the plaintiff, the court ultimately granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Court Decides That Alleged Defects in Assignments Did not Give Rise to Claims Under the Washington Consumer Protection Act

Posted on by

The court in deciding Babrauskas v. Paramount Equity Mortg., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152561 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 23, 2013) dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint.

Plaintiff alleged that Paramount’s loan origination practices, MERS’ involvement in the original deed of trust, and the subsequent defects in assignments gave rise to claims under the Washington Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) and/or the Washington Deed of Trust Act (“DTA”).

Plaintiff also asserted claims of fraud, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and quiet title. Defendants sought dismissal of all of plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).

The court found that the plaintiff’s insistence that MERS’ involvement somehow strips subsequent holders of beneficiary status was simply incorrect. With regards to the representation regarding MERS’ status as beneficiary, the court found that the plaintiff had not alleged that he relied on that representation or that he suffered damages caused by MERS’ misrepresentation.

The court found that the plaintiff had not, therefore, asserted a viable cause of action under the CPA regarding the representation that MERS was the beneficiary. Further, the plaintiff’s claims under the DTA therefore failed as a matter of law. Plaintiff also had failed to allege facts that gave rise to a plausible claim that defendants could be liable for a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Having failed to allege facts raising a plausible inference that plaintiff had satisfied the loan obligation or was otherwise entitled to free and clear title to the property, plaintiff’s quiet title claim was deemed defective.

Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Wrongful Foreclosure, Fraud, Quiet Title and Declaratory Relief Claims

Posted on by

The plaintiff in Cuddeback v. Bear Stearns Residential Mortg. Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152989 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 10, 2013) brought claims against Bear Stearns, EMC, Wells Fargo (collectively, “Defendants”) for wrongful foreclosure, fraud, quiet title and declaratory relief pursuant to Washington law. The plaintiff also sought damages arising from violations of the Real Estate and Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2607, and the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1641(g).

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss as they found that plaintiff failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted.

California Court Finds That the Plaintiff’s Complaint Should be Dismissed as Defendant Owed no Fiduciary Duty

Posted on by

The court in deciding Lawrence v. Sadek, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153074 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2013) dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.

The plaintiff’s complaint alleged that defendant breached a fiduciary duty by allowing the plaintiff to enter the loan agreement knowing that she would default.

Plaintiff claimed, defendant owed her a fiduciary duty because Quick Loan, plaintiff’s lender, was a “client” of Peterson’s employer and co-defendant ETS Services. Peterson in response, argued that (1) she did not owe a fiduciary duty to plaintiff because neither she nor her employer ETS Services were parties to the loan transaction, and (2) even if she or her employer were parties to the transaction, lenders generally do not owe a fiduciary duty to borrowers.

Defendant Peterson filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). The Court held a hearing and after considering the parties’ arguments, the court found that the plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed because Peterson did not owe a fiduciary duty to plaintiff.

California Court Dismisses Plaintiffs Suit Brought for Wrongful Foreclosure Defendants Bank of America & Freddie Mac

Posted on by

The court in deciding Bergman v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153173 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2013) dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint.

Most of plaintiffs’ claims were based on one of two legal theories.

First, the plaintiffs based their arguments on the alleged sale of the DOT from Bank of America to the Securitized Trust, the plaintiffs argued that the sale divested Bank of America of its beneficial interest in the DOT. Plaintiff also alleged that because the DOT was never properly assigned, the Securitized Trust also did not hold the beneficial interest. They alleged that, accordingly, the true beneficiaries are the Securitized Trust’s certificate holders.

Second, the plaintiffs based their argument on the alleged involvement of PK Properties in illegal bid-rigging activities, including activities that allegedly tainted the trustee’s sale for the Property.

The court, after considering the arguments provided by the plaintiff, granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed the complaint.

Texas Court Finds That MERS Had Authority to Assign, Thus Defendant Could Enforce Note

Posted on by

The plaintiff in Hines v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153895 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2013), contended that defendants could not show an unbroken chain of title to enforce the note because MERS had no authority to assign the note to Deutsche Bank. However, the court eventually dismissed the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.

The plaintiff sought a declaration from the court that any foreclosure of her home would be wrongful because none of the defendants had standing to foreclose. The plaintiff claimed that this was due to defects in the assignment and securitization process.

The plaintiff’s wrongful foreclosure allegations could be grouped into two categories: (1) MERS lacked authority to assign the deed and note from First NLC to Deutsche Bank; and (2) defendants did not comply with the securitization requirements of the applicable Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”). However, the court found that under recent Fifth Circuit case law, both of the plaintiff’s grounds for her claims failed. Thus, the court decided that her wrongful foreclosure claim must be dismissed.