Williams v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Filing 35

ORDER adopting 32 Report and Recommendations; granting 5 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

JASON WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:11-cv-00383-BLW-REB
ORDER

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., AS
SUCCESSOR TO COUNTRYWIDE
HOME LOANS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC., a
Delaware corporation; RECONTRUST
COMPANY, N.A., a corporate of
unknown origin and a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Bank of America, N.A.;
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA
THE BANK OF NEW YORK AS
TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE
HOLDERS of CWABS, INC., ASSET
BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES
2005-6; a corporation; and DOES 1-10 as
individuals or entities with an interest in
the property commonly known as: 3651 N.
Dixon Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83646,
Defendants.
On August 10, 2012, United States Magistrate Judge Ronald E. Bush issued a
Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 32), recommending that Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss (Dkt. 5) be granted. Any party may challenge a magistrate judge’s proposed
recommendation by filing written objections within fourteen days after being served with

ORDER - 1

a copy of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). The district court must then “make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” Id. The district court may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in
part, the findings and recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. Id.; see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Plaintiff filed an objection challenging the Report and Recommendation’s
conclusion that his Complaint be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 29). Plaintiff, in his objection,
merely restates the same arguments made in his response to the motion to dismiss. The
Court has nonetheless carefully considered the Plaintiff’s contentions and conducted a de
novo review of the record and the Court agrees with Judge Bush’s conclusions. Plaintiff
is in default on his mortgage obligations, has not tendered payment of his obligation, and
thus is not entitled to quiet title. Plaintiff’s theories that securitization of the mortgage
clouded title to the property, or that MERS is not a valid beneficiary entitled to enforce
the note, are not supported by the case law or the loan documents. Plaintiff also cannot
offer any legal authority in support of his claim that Defendants cannot foreclose unless
they prove they possess the note. Finally, Plaintiff has failed to show that the debt was
not properly assigned, or that Defendants otherwise failed to comply with Idaho’s
foreclosure laws. As such, Defendants’ motion to dismiss will be granted.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:

ORDER - 2

1.

Having conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation,
the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Bush’s Report and Recommendation
is well founded in law and consistent with the Court’s own view of the
record. Therefore, acting on the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bush,
and this Court being fully advised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation entered on August 10,
2012, (Dkt. 32), shall be, and is hereby, INCORPORATED by reference
and ADOPTED in its entirety.

2.

Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. 5) is GRANTED.

3.

The Court will enter a separate judgment in accordance with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 58.

DATED: September 17, 2012

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

ORDER - 3