Dides v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC.
Filing
27
MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge William M Nickerson on 5/21/13. (C/M 5/22/13 apls, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SAMEH DIDES
*
*
*
*
*
v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Civil Action No. WMN-12-2989
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiff filed this action in the District Court for Anne
Arundel County, Maryland, on or about September 13, 2012.
The
allegations in the Complaint, in their entirety, were as
follows: “Illegally charging fees and illegally reporting to the
[Bureau] causing loss of Business and continuous [harassment] by
Phone requesting that [illegible writing] all fee[s] and pay for
compensation.”
ECF No. 2.
The Court dismissed the Complaint on
Defendant’s motion, but with leave for Plaintiff to file an
Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff timely filed an Amended Complaint that provided
some additional factual allegations.
ECF No. 17.
He asserts
that, after ten years of having his mortgage loan serviced by
Litton, Defendant Ocwen took over the servicing.
When it did,
it recalculated the amount that had to be held in escrow and, as
a result, demanded an increased monthly payment.
While not
entirely clear from the Amended Complaint, it appears that
Plaintiff’s monthly mortgage payments did not include the
additional escrow payments and, as a result, Plaintiff was
assessed late fees.
Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant
failed to pay his real estate taxes in full in September 2012,
which resulted in additional fees.
Nonetheless, Plaintiff
asserts that Defendant “mailed him a refund check in JAN 2013 of
$1151.00 even though I did not send them the money they
demanded.”
Am. Compl. at 2.
Finally, Plaintiff complains that
Defendant refused to disclose to him the current note holder so
that he could communicate with the note holder directly.
Based upon these allegations, Plaintiff opines that:
OCWEN had no right to change the yearly analysis
without the direction of the current note holder and
without justification, [e]specially for the last ten
year[s] it was fine
OCWEN had no right to cash my APR 2012 payment
and not sen[d] it [to] the note holder, then charge
late fees and report to the [credit] bureau that the
loan [is] in default.
OCWEN had no right to [make] only partial[]
payment of my taxes, where the funds are available.
OCWEN[’s] action caused me los[s] of
creditability and [to] lose[] my line of credit with
creditors.
Id.
In moving to dismiss the Amended Complaint, or for summary
judgment, Defendant explains that, when it acquired Litton in
September 2011 and thus obtained the servicing rights to
2
Plaintiff’s loan, it reviewed the tax assessments for the
property and determined that increased escrow payments would be
required to fund the December 2011 installment and future 2012
tax assessments in full.
Aff. of Rashad Blanchard at ¶ 15.
Taxes on the property had increased in 2009, 2010, and 2011.
Real estate taxes fell significantly, however, in 2012 and that
fall resulted in the refund to Plaintiff.
Id. ¶ 16.
Defendant further explained that its assessment and
handling of the escrow funds was fully consistent with the terms
of the Deed of Trust executed by Plaintiff.
Specifically, the
Deed of Trust permits the loan servicer to estimate the amount
of future property taxes and collect and hold those payments in
escrow.
It also allows that, when partial payments are made,
the payment can be accepted and placed in a “suspense account”
until such time as sufficient payments are made to bring the
loan current.
Id. ¶ 10.
In opposing the motion, Plaintiff fails to rebut any of
Defendant’s factual representation or to respond to any of
Defendant’s arguments.
Instead, in a one page response that
cites no legal authority and is supported by no exhibits nor
affidavit, Plaintiff raises a new allegation related to his
service on Defendant of a “QWR1 form requir[ing] [Defendant] to
1
It is assumed Plaintiff is referencing a Qualified Written
Request. Under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
3
produce all original documents of any transfers as required by
federal law.”
ECF No. 25 at 1.
Plaintiff did not provide a
copy of this alleged “QWR” with his response or with his Amended
Complaint.
Regardless, as Defendant notes in its reply brief,
the permissible scope of Qualified Written Requests under RESPA
is limited to information related to the servicing of loans,
specifically the receipt of payments from a borrower and the
making of payments of principal and interest.
See 12 U.S.C. §§
2605(e)(1)(A) and 2605(i)(3); Ward v. Security Atl. Mort.
Electronic Registration Sys., Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d 561, 574
(W.D.N.C. 2012).
There is no requirement that servicers provide
“original documents of any transfers.”
Ward, 858 F. Supp. 2d at
574-75.
To overcome a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff "may
not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleading,
but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this
rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial."
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v.
Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 n.11 (1986).
Disputes
concerning material facts are genuine where the evidence is such
that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving
(RESPA), a servicer of federally related mortgages is required
to provide a written response when it receives a “Qualified
Written Request” from a borrower or borrower’s agent. See 12
U.S.C. § 2605.
4
party.
(1986).
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
Here, Defendant has submitted admissible evidence that
it serviced Plaintiff’s mortgage loan consistent with the terms
of the Deed of Trust.
evidence.
Plaintiff offers nothing to refute that
Accordingly, Defendant is entitled to summary
judgment on Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.
A separate order
will issue.
_______________/s/________________
William M. Nickerson
Senior United States District Judge
DATED: May 21, 2013
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?