Roxanne Jackson v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00871-AJT-MSN. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999935416]. [15-2472]

Appeal: 15-2472

Doc: 25

Filed: 09/26/2016

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2472

ROXANNE R. JACKSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
CITIFINANCIAL MORTGAGE COMPANY,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District
Judge. (1:15-cv-00871-AJT-MSN)

Submitted:

September 8, 2016

Decided:

September 26, 2016

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher E. Brown, THE BROWN FIRM PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia,
for Appellant. Jonathan S. Hubbard, Sarah Warren Smith, TROUTMAN
SANDERS LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Jason E. Manning, TROUTMAN
SANDERS LLP, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2472

Doc: 25

Filed: 09/26/2016

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Roxanne

R.

Jackson

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

granting Appellee’s motion to dismiss her amended complaint under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
parties’

briefs

on

appeal,

We have reviewed the record and the
and

we

find

no

reversible

error.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.
We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6).

King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 214 (4th Cir. 2016).

In reviewing the dismissal, we “may consider additional documents
attached to the complaint or the motion to dismiss so long as they
are integral to the complaint and authentic.” Id. at 212 (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted).
dismiss,

a

complaint

must

contain

“To survive a motion to

sufficient

factual

matter,

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.’”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

“Bare

legal conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth and
are insufficient to state a claim.”

King, 825 F.3d at 214

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Jackson

seeks

to

retain

possession

of

real

property

in

Virginia after she defaulted on her mortgage loan and the property
was sold at a foreclosure sale to Appellee.

Appellee was not the

original lender on Jackson’s deed of trust, but prior to her
default, an assignment of mortgage was executed and recorded that
2

Appeal: 15-2472

Doc: 25

Filed: 09/26/2016

Pg: 3 of 4

assigned the lender’s rights in the deed of trust to Appellee.
After Jackson defaulted on her loan, Appellee appointed substitute
trustees, and the property was sold.
In this action, Jackson seeks to challenge the assignment to
Appellee.

However, under Virginia law, only a party or intended

beneficiary of a contract or instrument has standing to sue on the
contract or instrument.

See Va. Code Ann. § 55-22; Kelley v.

Griffin, 471 S.E.2d 475, 477 (Va. 1996); see also Buzbee v. U.S.
Bank, N.A., 84 Va. Cir. 485 (2012) (holding borrowers lacked
standing to challenge assignment of deed of trust).
Jackson

does

not

allege

that

she

was

a

party

or

Because
intended

beneficiary of the assignment, we conclude that she lacks standing
to challenge the assignment in this case.
Notwithstanding Virginia precedent, Jackson argues that we
should apply the rule announced by the California Supreme Court in
Yvanova v. New Century Mortg. Corp., 365 P.3d 845 (Cal. 2016),
that when a challenged assignment is void as opposed to merely
voidable, the borrower does not lack standing to sue for wrongful
foreclosure.

However, even if we were inclined to apply another

state’s rule, we conclude that Jackson fails to allege facts
showing a “void” assignment.
We therefore affirm the district court’s order.

We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

3

Appeal: 15-2472

Doc: 25

adequately

Filed: 09/26/2016

presented

in

the

Pg: 4 of 4

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4