Herrera et al v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC et al

Filing 27

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 4/26/2016. (nd2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

JORGE HERRERA AND MARIA HERRERA

v.
NATIONS TAR MORTGAGE LLC, ET AL.

*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil No. - JFM-15~1247

******
MEMORANDUM

Defendants have filed a partial motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. The motion is
granted in part and denied in part.
The motion is directed only to plaintiffs' first cause of action under the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act ("RESP A") and the second cause of action for breach of contract
insofar as it relates to an alleged 2009 loan modification agreement ("2009 Modification").
The motion is granted as to the RESP A claims except for the claim as to the November
13,2014 QWR. Defendants did respond to the October 7,2014 and the January 8, 2015 QWR.
Defendants apparently did not submit a timely response to the November 13, 2014 QWR, and it
is for this reason that defendants' motion is being denied as to that QWR.
Defendants are correct in their contention that 12 U.S.C.

S 2605(e)

does not require that a

loan servicer resolve disputes to the satisfaction of the inquiring borrower. Rather, a loan
servicer is required only to provide "to the extent now applicable, a statement of the reasons for
which the servicer believes that the account of borrower is correct as determined by the
servicer."

12 U.S.C.

S 2605(e)(2)(B).

To the extent that plaintiffs argue in their opposition to

defendants' motion that their QWRs requested either enumerated items which were not provided
with the defendants' QWR responses, the fact of the matter is that defendants were not required
1

to provide that information. See generally Bullock v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 2015 WL
5008773 (Aug. 20, 2015), The QWR responses each state that the payment history was included
with the response.
As for the breach of contract claim asserted in connection with the 2009 Modification,
plaintiff's position is not viable. The 2009 Modification was not, as contended by plaintiffs,
"under seal." Likewise, the continuing harm doctrine provides no solace to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs
"knew or should have known of the injury or harm" that they suffered more than three years
before they instituted this action. See generally MacBride v. Pishvaian, 402 Md. 572, 584
(2007).

Date:

'1/141 It

j kYv--..
J. Fiderick Motz
Un' ed States Dlstnct Judge

AJ.nd3U .... ~._- .•_,

q
o't\...-

2