Cole v. Federal National Mortgage Association et al

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 2/13/2017. (C/M 2/14/2017 aos, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
'I ., - IN THE UNITED STATES IHSTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOl/II/em Dh'isioll .JENNIFER COLE, I I, " , - roo '') I _ * Plaintiff, * '0. Case No.: G.JH-15-3960 * FEDERAL NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, el ;iI., MORTGAGE * Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1\1E1\10RANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Jennifer Cole brings this action 1'1"0 se against Dcfendants Mortgage Association ("Selcrus") a.k.a. Fannie Mac ("Fannic (collcctively, Defcndants) ("TI LA "). Rcal Estatc Scttlcmcnt Maryland Consumcr thc Maryland the Fair Crcdit Rcporting Court is Dcfendants' Protcction ~ 1601 el sell. Act, 12 U .S.c. ~ 2605 el seq. ("RESP A"), thc Act. Md. Codc Com. Law ~ 14-201 elseq. ("MCDCA"), Act. Md. Codc Com. Law * 13-301 elseq. C'MCPA"), ~ 1681 elseq. ("FCRA").Prescntly Act. 15 U.S.c. and pcnding bcfore the Motion to Dismiss for Failurc to Statc a Claim, Eel' No. 21, and Plaintiffs Cross Motion lor Summary Judgmcnt. ECF No. 25. No hcaring is ncccssary. For the reasons statcd below. Defendants' part, and Plaintitrs and Scterus, Inc. under thc Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.s.c. Procedurcs Dcbt Collection Consumcr Mac" or "FNMA") Fcdcral National See Loc. R. 105.6. Motion to Dismiss is denicd. in part. and grantcd. in Cross Motion for Summary Judgment is also dcnied. I. BACKGROUND Jcnnifer Calc is thc rccord owner and rcsidcnt ofthc Arthur Court. Glenn Dale. Maryland also thc sole mortgagor ofthc Id. at 2. DeJendant Propcrty. Defendant 20769 (..thc Property"). mortgage See ECF No. 17 at 1-2.1 PlaintifTis Loan") sccurcd by thc Fannic Mae is tbc current owncr of the MOItgagc Loan. Id. the current scrvieer of the Mortgage On or about Novcmber Iromnon-party locatcd at 12601 King loan (the "Loan" or "Mortgage Seterus is "a loan servieer specializing thc Propcrty propcrty Loan. Id. in servicing defaulted mortgagc debts" and is 'i~ X. 4. X. 2007. Jcnnifer and Darryl Colc obtained Bank of America. 'i II. N.A.' Id. 'i 5. Thc thc Mortgage Loan was evidcnecd Loan on by a secured by a Deed of Trust (the "Deed of Trust"). Id. 'i 6. Cole passed away in October of 20 13 and Ms. Cole became the sole mortgagor. Id. 'i 9. Seterus promissory declarcd note (the "Note") thc Loan iii defllUlt on Fcbruary It!. ~ II. Thc Loan defaulted and the total amount required to cure thc secured party IlJl" the Loan. defllUlt was $15.034.09. It!. Ms. Cole arranged to obtain a pcrsonal arrcars amount of$15.034.09. providing hcr mortgagc hcr the requested beeausc "Sctcrus 1. 2014. Id. ,; 10. Sctcrus mailed Ms. Cole a Notice of in No\"Cmber 2014. which stated. inter alia. that Fannie Mae was the eurrcnt Intent to Foreclosc Cole. including Darryl Id. '1 12. Thc statcmcnts loan. loan from a privatc lendcr in ordcr to pay thc privatc Icnder rcqucsted and a history of loan paymcnts. filed as a condition fj'om Ms. to It!. ~ 13. Ms. Cole was unable to providc these documcnts docs not scnd monthly mortgagc I Pin cites to doculllents ccrtain documcnts on the Court"s electronic filing statcmcnts:' It!. '1'114. 71. Plaintiff scnt a system (CMIECF) refer to the page Ilumbers generated bv that svstelll. 2 i-he A';lcnded Complaint alleges that the Coles obtained the loan from non-party Countrywide Bank. FSB. and that the loan was laler acquired by Bank of America. N.A. EeF No. 17 'i'l 5. 7. Defendants attach the Deed of Trust. of which the Court takcsjudicialnotice. which states that the loan originated with Bank ofAmcrica. N./\. ECF 0.215 at 2. 2 letter to Seterus dated December 12,2014 ("First Letter") requesting proof that Seterus was in possession of the original Note. [<I. ~ 15. Ms, Cole also requested that Seterus stop assessing interest and fees while she was waiting lor a copy of the original Note. fd. '1 15. Seterus "did not send a letter acknowledging receipt of Ms. Cole's Deccmber 12,2014 letter:' id '1 16, but responded to Ms. Cole on December 29, 2014 and December 31. 2014 by sending a "payoff statement" and "reinstatement quotes:' respectively. fd. ~ 17. On January 12, 2015, Seterus sent Ms. Cole anuncertilied copy of the Note and an Assignment of the Deed of Trust purporting to transfer the Deed of Trust from Countrywide Home Loans to Fannie Mae. fcI. ~ J 9. Ms. Cole contends that prior to this letter dated January 12, 20 IS, she had not been noti lied that Fannie Mae held an interest in the Deed of Trust. fd. 'i 20. Ms. Cole sent a second letter dated January 22, 2015 ("Second Letter") in which she eomplained that Seterus had not provided her a certilied copy of the Note. fd. ~ 21. Seterus "did not send a letter acknowledging receipt of Ms. Cole's January 22, 2015 letter:' id. '122, but sent a eertilied copy of the Note back to Ms. Cole on February 18, 20 IS. fd. ~ 25 ..l In a letter dated February 9, 2015, Seterus sent Ms. Cole reinstatement quotes that assessed fiJreclosure sale costs and attorney's fees against her. [d. ~ 24. Ms. Cole also viewed her Equilax credit report on February 2. 2015 and saw that Seterus was reporting her as "delinquent" on her mortgage. fd. ~ 23. Aller Ms. Cole received the certilied copy of the Notc, she sent another letter on March 5, 2015 ("Fourth Letter") offering to cure the det:1ult. but requested that Seterus remove all interest and fees that had accrued while she was waiting I(JI" the certilied copy of the Note, fd. 'i 30. She also requested to physically inspect the Note. fd. Seterus "did not send a letter to acknowledge receipt of Ms. Cole's letter dated March 5th 2015:' id. .l While waiting for the certified copy orthe Note. Plaintiff sent 3 'i 33. but advised a leiter dated February IS. :!015 ("Third Letter"). Ms. Cole on April 1. 2015 that she could view the wet-ink original of the Note at the I3WW Law Group. LLe. Id 'i 36. Ms. Cole allegcs that on March 13.2015. Seterus disclosed to her I(lr the first time that Fannie Mae was thc "owncr of the Loan'" It!. n 31-32. PlaintilTcolltends that "'elither FNfvtA just became the owner of the Note in March 2015 or FNMA concealed this information Irom the Plaintiff."' Id ~ 32. Seterus's correspondence did not address Ms. Cole's request to remove the interest and Ices or explain the I(lreclosure costs or attorney's Ices. Id ~ 34. On multiple occasions throughout 2015. Ms. Cole observed that she was continuing to be reported as delinquent on her mortgage payments to various credit reporting agencies. Id at 610. Ms. Cole sent several letters to Seterus disputing the payoff amounts. but Seterus did not designate her account as "disputcd" with the credit reporting agencies. It!. 4 Ms. Cole eontinucd to dispute the amounts asserted in reinstatemcnt quotes sent by Scterus. Id '1 50. Ms. Cole also claims that Fannie Mac and Setcrus assesscd "cxccssive and inflatcd charges" on Plaintiirs account. based on "customary charges" for titlc Iccs. filing costs. and attorney's fees. Id ') 54. Ms. Cole furthcr allegcs that while Setcrus explained thc calculation of somc of the balance of the Loan. it did not rcspond to her multiple rcqucsts as to how the "corporate advance amount"' was asscssed. It!. 'i 53. 57. In February 2016. Ms. Cole inquired with a third party about a personal loan for her mortgage payments. Id 'i 61. Ilowcver. thc third party declined to provide her thc loan bccause hcr mortgage records wcre not "accurate or suflicicnt to dctcrminc what amount was rcquircd to covcr the mortgagc and any arrears'" Id 'i~ 61. 62. Ms. Cole alleges that she incurred fees paying the third party to obtain information on the amount duc. Id ') 66. ~ According 10 PlainlilTs First Amended Complaint. she s~nt letters to Scterus dated August 17.2015 ("Fifth Leuer"). October 7. 2015 ("Sixth Letter"). November 8. 2015 (""Seventh Letter"). November 28. 2015 ("Eighth Letter"). and February 24. 2016 ("Ninth I.etter"). Ms, Cole Iiled her initial Complaint November in the Circuit Court f()r Prince George's 4. 2015. ECF NO.2. DefCndants removed the action to this Court on December 28. 2015. ECF No, I. Plaintiff filed an Amcnded Dcfcndants in Opposition May 5. 2016, ECF No. 25, Defendants I()r Summary Judgment II. Complaint on February 26. 2016, ECF No. 17, filcd their Motion to Dismiss for Failurc to State a Claim on March 28. 2016. ECF No. 21. Plaintiff Iiled a Response Opposition County on and Cross Motion I())' Summary Judgment Iilcd a Rcply and Opposition on May 19.2016, to Plaintiffs on Cross Motion ECF No. 26. Plaintiff filed a Reply to Defendant's on June 6. 2016, ECF No. 27. STANDARD OF IU:VIEW A. l2(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss ,,/\ defCndant may test the adcquacy ofa complaint Rulc 12(b)(6)," Mahrll \', /Jank of Am .. N.A .. No, 12-CV-508. May 14.2012) by way ofa motion to dismiss undcr 2012 WL 1744536. at *4 (D. Md. (citing 0rmllll1 ", Fox, 2671', App'x 231. 233 (4th Cit'. 2008). Rule 12(b)(6) motion. a complaint To overcome a must allege enough lilCts to state a plausible claim I()r rclief Asherof; \', Iqhal. 556 U,S, 662. 678 (2009), A claim is plausible when "the plaintiff pleads factual eontcnt that allows the Court to draw the reasonable for the misconduct In evaluating allegations alleged," that the delcndant is liable Id the sufficiency in the Complaint inlcrcnce of the Plaintiffs' claims. the Court acccpts lilCtual as true and construes the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Srr Alhrighl \" Olil'rr. 510 U,S, 266. 268 (1994): Lamhelh \', Bd or Comm 'rs or Dm'idson Oy.. 407 F.3d 266. 268 (4th Cit'. 2005), However. the Complaint must contain more than "legal conclusions. de\'()id of further lilcllm! enhanccment," clcmcnts of a cause of action. and bare assertions Nrlllrl Chen'o/el, 1.ld \', COlIslllllrra/litirs.COlli.Ille.. 591 I' .3d 5 250.255 (4th Cif. 2009). The court should not aftirm a motion to dismiss I(lr failure to state a claim for rcliefunless "it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations'" GE 1m'. /'ri\'(1/1' /'1i1L'1'1Il1'1I1 /'arllll'l'.\'1/ F.3d 543. 548 (4th Cir. 200!) (citing 11.1.IIIL'. \', Narl/nrl',\1<'I'I1IM/ \" /'arkl'l'.247 TI'!. Co.. 492 U,S. 229. 249- 50). B. Summary.Judgment A party may also move for summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ, 1'. 56(a). identifying cach claim or defcnse on \\'hieh summary judgment is sought. at any time until 30 days alier the close of all discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A court "shall grant summary judgment if the movant sho\\'s that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter ofla\\'''' Fed, R, Civ, P, 56(e). A materia! fact is one that "might affect the outcome of the suit under the goveming la\\'''' AIlc!l'rsoll I'. Uhl'l'ly I,ohhy. Ille.. 477 U,S, 242. 248 (1986). A gcnuine issue over a material fact exists "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict lar the nonmoving party'" 1<1. In undertaking this inquiry, the Court must consider the taets and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorablc to the nonmoving party, Scoll I'. /farris, 550 U.S. 372. 378 (2007). Ho\\'ever. this COUl1must also abide by its aflirmative obligation to prevent liletually unsupported claims and delenses from going to trial. III. IJI'/!Irill \', /'1'lI11, 999 F.2d 774. 778-79 (4th Cir. 1993). ANALYSIS A, TlLA Claims The Truth in Lending Act serves to "assure a meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer \\'ill be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to Iher] and avoid the uninformed use of credit. and to protect the consumer against inaccurate and unlilir 6 crcdit billing and credit card practices," 15 U.S.c. Defendants ownership fililed to notifY I'laintiffthat Mae in violation violation of * * of 15 U.S.c. * 1639(t). 164I(g)(I). * 160 I. In this suit. Plainti fTalleges that of the Loan had been transferred sent PlaintilTan and f~li1cdto timely transmit inaccurate periodic mortgage payoffstatcment statemcnts 1638(1) of the Truth in Lending Aet. The Court will address those contentions i. * 15 U.S.C. mortgage U.S.c. * loan is sold or otherwise in turn. or assigned to a third party. the creditor that is the of the debt shall notifY the borrower of the underlying 11-12. Theref(Jre. in violation of that "not later than 30 days alier the date on which a transferred 1641 (g). Here. Defendants transferring in 164 I (g) 1641 (g) provides new owner or assignee to Fannie assert that the disclosure debt. not to the assignment Defendants in writing of such transfer," requirements 15 apply only to the of the Deed of Trust. lOCI' No. 21-1 at argue. "her claim under 1641 (g) is insufficiently plead and fails," Ill. at 12. While Defendants are correct that the mere assignment Trust alone does not trigger the disclosure does. See Barr \'. Flagswr Bank. rSB or 'debt,'''). (emphasis (via transfer. sale. assignment. then [her] in original): 2011 WI. 2437267. the * requirement * 164I(g) * at *3-4 1641 (g) applies when the new 'mortgage that both the security instrument loan' and the note claim will survive a motion to dismiss on that ground," .Iee also Schat'er at *6 (CD. of 2014 WI. 4660799. or other means) the borrower's Thus, "i I' a plaintifr pleads sufficiently were transferred, the Note itsclf .. No. CIV.A. RDB-13-2654. (D. Md. Sept. 17. 2(14) ("The disclosure creditor acquires of the Deed of of 1641 (g). transferring requirements or re-assignment 1'. CiliA/orlgage. Inc.. No. CV 11-03919 Cal. June 15,2011) (denying the defendants' aDW Ill. (ITMx), motion to dismiss 1641(g) claim because the plaintiff alleged that the note and the deed of trust were assigned 7 Squires on the same date to defendants); M. 2011 WI. 5966948. 1'. BilC /lome LOll/ISSelTicing. [J'. No. II-0413-WS- at *3 (S.D. Ala. Nov. 29. 2011) (allowing plaintiffs' proceed because they alleged that both the note and the mortgage ~ 1641(g) claim to were assigned to the defendant). Ilere. Plaintiff does not merely claim that the Deed of Trust was assigned but also that the underlying debt was transferred Loan. See ECF No. 17 at II ("Defendant failing to notify the PlaintilTthat 17 'll32 ("Seterus's PlaintitTwas identitied undisputed disclosure and Fannie Mae was the new owner of her FNMA violated TILA. 15 U.S.c. the ownership ~ 164I(g)(I) of the loan had been transferred by to it."): lOCI' No. that FNMA was the owner of the Note was the first date that advised that FNMA was the owner of the Note."). itself as the current owner of Plaintiffs in the pleadings to Fannie Mae. Mortgage that another entity previously Indeed. Fannie Mae has Loan. ECF No. 21-1 at 8. and it is owned the Loan. See ECF No. 17 at 2: ECF No. 21-5 at2. Defendant further argues that the most recent assignment in 2012. and therefore limitations any claim arising Irom such transfer is barred by the one-year statute of under TI LA. See J 5 U.s.c. claim is not barred by the one-year unequivocally WI. 2707768. statute of limitations Plainti ITargues that her TI LA because the allegations did not disclose Fannie Mae's ownership concealed The Court agrees that at this juncture. grounds would be improper. ~ 1640( e). In response. statute of limitations state that Defendants March 2015. and that Delendants 01968.2014 of the Deed of Trust was made this information dismissal from Plaintiff. in the Complaint of the loan until ECF No. 25 at 2 n.l. of Plainti Irs ease on statute of limitations See IVai'll 1'. Branch Banking & hus! Co.. No. CIV.A. EUI-13at *13 (D. Md. June 13.2014) grounds where "plaintiff ... (declining alleged suflieient 8 to dismiss TILA claim on laets to receive the bene lit of equitable tolling"}: see also Roach ". Balik o/Am. Corl' .. NO.3: 14-CV -703-.I-39.JBT. 7771740. at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 9. 2014) (noting that "Idlismissal ollly ifit is apparent li'om the face of the complaint appears beyond a doubt that la plaintifll (emphases in original). allegations concealed in the Complaint on such grounds is appropriate that the claim is time-barred and (1/7~1'ifit can prove no set of facts that toll the statute.") Plainti l'fhas alleged that disclosure that DelCndants otherwise 2014 WI. was lirst made in March 2015. and this ini(JI'Illation Irom her prior to that date. Taking the as true. the Court denies DeICndants' Motion to Dismiss this claim. ii. 1639(t} * Under 15U.S.C. 1639(t)(2). "Iplayoffbalances days alter receiving a request by a consumer such ini(JI'Illation." 15 U.S.C. * 1639(t)(2). lenders ..to provide. \vithin a reasonable person acting on behalfofthe or a person authorized 12 C.F.R. * 226.36(e)( consumer. I )(iii). "This regulation loans] to tcll borrowers * by the consumer 226.36 ("Regulation to obtain Z") limher requires time alter receiving a request from the consumer an accurate statement that would be required to satisfy the consumer's C.F.R. shall be provided within 5 business obligation thus essentially of the total outstanding in full as ofa speeilied requires servieers or any balance date." 12 101'home mortgage the account balance. or payoff amount. when asked." Aglucil ". Se,'el'll Sal'. Balik. No. 1'.1 15-1529. 2016 WI. 808823. at *5 (D. Md. Mar. 2. 2(16) (citing Boonlley ,'. M !lOIl.Ie/101d Fillmlce Corl'. 111.39 F. Supp. 3d 689. 698 (D. Md. 2(14)). Ilere. Defendants that her mortgage was "a high-cost la\\'. As Plaintiff correctly high-cost mortgage argue that Plaintiff did not allege she was improperly mortgage:' points out. however. warranting loan servieer's of her claims as a matter of she is not required to allege an improper to bring a claim under this subsection. (noting that "Ialmortgage dismissal charged a ICe or fcc or a See Ag/ucil. 2016 WI. 808823. at *5 li,ilure to provide accurate payoff ligures "hen asked may ... providc thc basis ofa TILA claim by a mortgagc loan consumcr."): I.udell \'. Fed. Morlg. Ass '11. NlIl. 21 F. Supp. 3d 1379. 1384 (S.D. Fla. 2(14) (noting that ..~ 1639 docs not havc a blankct provision stating that it applics only to high-cost mortgagcs" and declining to dismiss plaintiffs claim on this basis). Hcncc. Dcfcndants' Motion to Dismiss this claim is dcnicd. iii. 1638(1) Plaintilrs final TILA claim relatcs to Dcfcndants' allcgcd failurc to transmit pcriodic mortgagc statcmcnts. 15 U.S.c. ~ 1638(1) providcs that: . Thc crcditor. assigncc. or scrviccr with rcspcct to any rcsidcntial mortgagc loan shall transmit to thc obligor. for cach billing cyclc. a statcmcnt sctting liJrth cach of the following itcms. to thc cxtcnt applicable. in a conspicuous and promincnt manncr: (A) (B) (C) (0) (E) Thc amount ofthc principal obligationundcr thc mortgagc. Thc currcnt intcrcst ratc in cffect for the loan. Thc datc on which thc intercst ratc may ncxt rcsct or adjust. Thc amount of any prcpaymcnt Icc to bc charged. ifany. A description of any late paymcnt fecs. 15 U.S.c. ~ 1638( 1)(I). Ilcrc. Dclendant argucs that "Plaintiff was providcd with suflicicnt account documcntationto idcntify intcrcst and other costs and fecs accruing on thc Mortgagc Account •. Eel' No. 21-1 at 8-9. Dcfcndant filrthcr argucs that PlaintifThas failed to show "dctrimental reliancc" and "actual damages:' Id. at 9. In rcsponse. Plaintiff points to scvcral allcgations in thc Complaint dcmonstrating that Dcfendants failed to transmit periodic mortgage statcments to hcr. and indicating that whcn shc did rcccivc mortgagc statcmcnts. they did not providc thc "statutorily rcquired in/ormation:' such as the amount of intcrcst assessed on thc account and certain latc payment lees. ECF No. 25 at 4-6 (citing Ecr' No. 17). Plaintiff limhcr contcnds that shc dctrimcntally rclicd on Dcfendants to providc the statutorily rcquired information bccausc if shc had rcceived the mortgagc statcmcnts. "Plaintiff would havc know! nJ that Setcrus is charging intcrcst. fees. and costs and the Plaintiffwould 10 havc paid or challcngcldJ those assessments and precluded No. 17 '173. PlaintilTalso statements any interest. lees. or costs resulting asserts that she sustained damages from late payments." because she "did not have mortgage to provide the pri vate lender." so she was "unable to obtain the personal the default.'. Id ~ 71. The Court agrees that PlaintilThas claim. and Defendant's ECF alleged evidence suflicient loan to cure to state a Motion to Dismiss is thus denied. B. RESI' A Claims PlaintilTnext qualilied claims Dclendants written requests ("QWRs"). fililed to provide notice that they had received lililed to investigate respond within seven days of her disputing to provide information to credit reporting sixty day period following Rcal Estatc Settlement receipt of the QWRs - Procedures her inquiries within 30 days. fililed to the accuracy of the payofTstatement. agencies her regarding delinquency all in violation and continued of payments of 12 U.S.c. during the ~ 2605(e) of the Act. i. Duty to Respond 12 U.S.c. ~ 2605(e) imposes a duty on loan servicers to respond to borrowcr and take certain actions with respect to such inquiries. are known as "qualilied written requests" Borrower inquiries triggering or QWRs: r A 1 quali licd written request shall be a written correspondence. other than notice on a payment coupon or other payment medium supplied by the servieer. that(i) (ii) 12 U.S.c. includes. or otherwise enables the serviceI' to identify. the name and account of the borrower: and includes a statement of the reasons for the bclief of the borrower. to the extent applicable. that the account is in error or provides surticient detail to the serviceI' regarding other information sought by the borrower. ~ 2605(e)( I)(8). The statute provides a duty to respond to QWRs: II inquiries these duties If any servicer of a federally related mortgage loan receives a qualilied written request from the borrower (or an agent of the horrower) for information relating to thc servicing of such loan. the servicer shall provide a written response acknowledging receipt of the correspondence within 5 days (exeluding legal public holidays. Saturdays. and Sundays) unless the action requested is taken within such period. 12 U.S.c. ~ 2605(e)( I )(A). The statute also requires the scrviccr to take certain actions within 30 days of receiving borrower's the QWRs. Specilically. the servicer shall make appropriate account as needed. or conduct an investigation written explanation that Defendants QWRs on at least four occasions. Scc ECF No. 17 ~ 79: ECF No. 17 ~~ 16.22.33.58. failed to "take appropriate investigation inquiries:' of Plaintiffs 'i !d state that ..the permissible scope of Qualitied related to the servicing a "QWR" arguments conducting Plaintiff a reasonable in its Motion to Dismiss liJr purposes of RESP A. Defendants Written Requests under RESP A is limited to of loans:' related to the servicing action. including 81. Defendants' hinge on whether !,Iainti tr s requests constituted challenging with a failed to provide notice that it had received her also e1aims that Defendant communications and provide the borrower and "courts have drawn a distinction between of the loan. which are covered under RES!' A. and those the validity of the loan. which arc nol." ECF No. 21-1 at 15 (citing Didcs \'. Loan Servicing. to the or clari lication of the servicer" s decision. Scc 12 LJ .S.c. ~ 2605( e )(2). Here. !,laintifTelaims inl()fIllation corrections u.c. No. WMN-12-2989. 2013 WL 2285371. Minson)'. CiliA!orlgagc, /nc.. No. DKC-12-2233. ()nl"cn at *2 (D. Md. May 21. 2013): 2013 WL 2383658. at *4 (D. Md. May 29. 2013). Plaintiff counters in her Opposition beforc the 2013 RES!'A Scrvicing that the cases Defendants rcly upon were decided Rule went into eflecl. and that alier January servicer shall comply with the rcquirements 10.2014."a of this scction I()r any written request lor 12 information from a borrower that includes the name of the borrower ... and states the information the borrower is requesting with respect to the borrower's mortgage loan:' ECF No. 25 at 7 (citing 12 C.F.R. ~ 1024.3G(a)). Plaintiff further argues that she "not only requested information regarding the original Note [in her letters]. but the Plaintiff disputed or challenged the interest. fees. attorney fees. foreclosure costs and dclinquency status of the account" and ..the portion of Plaintilrs letters that disputed the assessed interest paymcnts. fees. costs. and delinquency status did relatc to servicing and thus the Ictters qualificd as QWRs." ECF No. 25 at 8 (citing ECF No. 17 'i~ 15.21. and 27). Thc Court agrecs that on thc Incts pn:scntcd in thc Complaint. PlaintilTs requcsts lit the delinition of qualified writtcn rcqucsts under 12 U.S.c. ~ 2G05(e)( I )(13).Additionally. PlaintilThas adequately pled damages to thc cxtcnt that she was unablc to obtain a loan and leasc the Property. ECF No. 17 ~~ 12-15. was asscssed interest. fees. and other chargcs. id. ','130. 35. 54. and spent time and money preparing and sending letters to Defcndants. See Ce::ail' \'. JI'A/ol'gall Chase Balik. IVA .. No. CIV.A. DKC 13-2928.2014 WL 4295048. at *8 (D. Md. Aug. 29. 2014) (noting that "[sJuch losses can constitute recovcrable damages"). llencc. Plaintiffhas stated a claim under RESI'A. ii. Reporting I'laintiff as llelinlJuent Additionally. 12 U.S.c. ~ 2G05(e) provides ti.lI'a grace period protecting a borrower's credit rating aner a serviccr rcceivcs a QWR; During the GO-day period beginning on the datc of the servicer's reccipt Ii'om any borrower of a qualilicd written request rclating to a dispute regarding the borrowcr's paymcnts. a scrviccr may not providc information rcgarding any ovcrdue payment. owcd by such borrower and relating to such period or qualified writtcn requcst. to any consumer reporting agency. 12 U.S.c. ~ 2G05(c)(3). Plaintiff claims that Defendants violated this provision by "providing inli.mnation to credit rcporting agencics regarding delinquent and/or overdue payments owed by 13 PlaintilTduring the sixty (60) day period liJllowing Seterus' wrilten requests .... ECF No. 17 ~ 84. DeCendants' whether Plaintitrs Plaintiffs requests qualified * iii, PlaintilThas conclusory not "cit[eJto establish on this point once again rclates to 2605(e) is denicd. Plaintifrs Motion for Summary further moved for summary judgment information:' particular the ... that Motion to Dismiss PlaintitTs' claim .Judgment on her RESPA claims, stating in lushion that ..there is no dispute that PlaintifTsubmilted inaccurate 'qualitied as Q\VRs. As the Court has already determined requests did qualifY as Q\VRs. Defendants' pursuant to 12 U.S.c. reported argument receipt oCPlaintiCfs ECF No. 25 at 15. 1I0wever. as Defendants parts oCmaterials presence valid Q\VRs and Seterus in the record" or "show[] that the materials cited do not oCa genuine dispute:' because the majority of Plaintilrs note. Plainti ITdoes as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)( 1). Indeed. claims hinge on her wrilten inquiries to Defendants Defendants' responses. this juncture would be inappropriate. and which have not yet been attaehed to the record. summary judgment Plaintiffs Motion Cor Summary Judgment at on her RESPA claims is therc!(,re denied. C. MCDCA Claims The Maryland Consumer to collect an alleged debt:' "c1aim[ingj. not exist:' "Plaintiff attempt[ingj. Debt Collection a collector * that "in collecting may not engage in various activities. or threatenlingj Md. Code. Com. Law Act provides must set I(Jrth lilctual allegations including to enl(JI'Ce a right with knowledge 14-202(8). or attempting that the right docs Thus. to plead a claim under the MeDCA. tending to establish two clements: (I) that DeCendants did not posscss the right to collect the amount of debt sought: and (2) that Defendants to collect the debt knowing that they lacked the right to do so:' 14 ['1'/1;11 I'. Alha Ll/II' attempted (jl'p .. 1'.11 .. No. Clv.A. prevailing DKC 15-0458.2015 WL 5032014. on a e!aim of MCDCA is to demonstrate to the il1m/idil\' of the debt. ... Id (citin~....,. ['u~h . 2013 WL 5655705. Plaintiff defaulted "attempt[edl on her mortgage Delcndant loan:' 21-1 at 17-18. (citing ['ac. A/orlg & (1989) ("In Maryland. MCDCA to collect loreclosure /111'. Defendant Group. Ud. claim is not predicated attempted collect. Here. PlaintilTalieges argument to prematurely counters that because the right to initiate foreclosure defaul t.")). Delcndants' whether Defendants 'acted with knowledge costs and conduct a fi)ree!osure "I i It is undisputed "had the legal right to foreclose." 1'. proceedings misapprehends on whether Defcndants typically excessive ECF Plainti Ir s cia im. Plai nt i fr s had the right to foreclose. but rather. on to collect an amount of debt they knew they had no right to in her Complaint Plaintiffalso that: states that Delcndants and inllated charges to Plaintiffs accounts: 15 o. arises upon the 91. Seterus knows that it did not provide Plaintiff witb an application 1(11' mediation when it served the I(Jreciosure action. In fact Setcrus did not file its tin'll loss mitigation and servc Plaintiff with an application I(l!' mcdiation until .Julv 27. 2015. n 90. 91. that LaGuerre. 81 Md. App. 28. 40-41 90. Seterus knew the Plaintiff had not been served with !(lree!osure action prior to February 14.2015 and that it must allow the Plaintiff up to twenty-five days to request mediation Irom date Plaintiff was served with the foreclosure action if an application I(lr mediation was ine!uded in the documents accompanying the I(Jree!osure action. Accordingly, Plaintiff had at least until March I I. 2015 to request mediation. Therel(lre. Seterus had no right to conduct a l(lI'ee!osure sale and thereby incur loree!osure sale costs by March 6. 2015. ECF No. 17 as Corelo~ic Credco. LLc' No. DKC 13-1602. Ices it had no legal right to collect" and attempted sale. ECF No. 17 at 14. In response. borrower's I'. that the defendant at *4 (D. Md. Oct.16. 2(13)). llere. Plainti ITargues that Defendants attorney at *3 (I). Md. Aug. 24. 2(15). "The key to FNMA and Seterus assessed More particularly. the Defendants charged an inl1ated amount for title fces ($225). process server ($95). tiling costs ($445) and attorney ICes ($1.500). Based on Plaintilrs research. the customary charges for the foregoing fees arc $100 ti)r title fees. $40 to $80 li)r process server. $175 for tiling costs. and $800 or less li)r attorney fees. ECI' No. 17'154. Thus. PlaintilThas set limh suflieient allegations tending to establish that Defendants did not possess the right to collect the amount of debt sought and attempted to collect the debt knowing that they lacked the right to do so. Accordingly. dismissal of this claim is not appropriate. D. MCI'A Claims Section ~ J 3-316( c )(2) of the Maryland Consumcr Protection Act provides that a mortgage loan servieer "shall respond in writing to each written complaint or inquiry within 15 days if requested:' Md. Code. Com. Law ~ 13-316(e)(2). Plaintiff claims that "Defendant Seterus violated MCPA ~ 13-316(e) by tailing to respond within 15 days:' ECF No. 17 ~ 97. Defendants counter that Plaintiff did not clearly request a response in her correspondence. and thus. Defendants had no duty to respond. ECF No. 21-1 at 19 (citing 7i'jol1{iJ I'. BlIl1k o{Am., N.A .. No. CIV. JI'M-15-925. 2015 WL 5165415. at *7 (D. Md. Sept. 2.2015) ("A plain reading of the statute indicates that a mortgagor must request a response in order to trigger the servicer's duty to provide one."}). Based upon a careful review of Plaintiffs nine written inquiries as alleged in the Complaint. however. at least seven inquiries referenced a request tor intimnation. ECF No. 17 ~~ 15.27.30.47.50.57.63. Nevertheless. it appears that of those seven inquiries. only the Novcmber 28. 20 J 5 Iettcr was not responded to in a timely 1~lshionunder ~ 13-316(e )(2). !d 'i~ 57-58 ("Sctcrus did not acknowledge Plaintitr s leltcr dated Novcmber 28. 2015. much less did Seterus provide a rcsponse to the letter:'). PlaintifTalieges that these tailures to respond "resulted 16 in the continual assessment stress in her attempts endure damages pecuniary interest. fees and costs on the mortgage to obtain the information including expenses:' of accruing by other means" and "caused the Plaintiff to stress. physical sickness. headaches. !d ~~ 98. 100. Thus. while Defendants' MCP A claims must be granted with respect to the remainder denied with respect to PlaintiJrs particular sleep deprivation. did not comply with * worry. and Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs of Plaintiff Eighth Letter dated November has stated a claim that Defendants account. and s written inquiries. 28. 2015 specifically. it is Plaintiff 13-31 G(e)(2) in regards to this letter. E. FCRA Claims Finally. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant or modify the accounts alier it concluded '.nliling to note Plaintin-s continuing prescribes responsihilities for furnishers Defendant Seterus was to credit reporting statute provides accuracy that alier receiving of any information violated a reasonable dispute:' investigation lOCI' No. 17 of information agencies * 15 U.S.c. I G8! s-2 by "failing to delete of Plaintiffs 'i'l 102-103. dispute" 15 U.S.c. to credit reporting agencies Equifilx. Experian. conduct inlimllation: ("'CRAs"). notice of a dispute "with regard to the completeness provided an I GSI s-2 hy a person to a consumer investigation with respect reporting to agency:' the disputed (13) review all relevant information provided by the consumer reporting agency pursuant to section I GSI i(a)(2) of this title: (C) report the results of the investigation to the consumer reporting agency: (D) if the investigation finds that the information is incompletc or inaccurate. rcport those results to all other consumer reporting agcncles to which the person filrnished the information and that 17 as and Trans Union. The shall: (A) * and or the filrnisher compile and maintain files on consumers on a nationwide basis: and (E) if an item of infonnation disputed by a consumer is !lllilld to be inaccurate or incomplete or cannot be verified alter any reinvestigation under paragraph (I), flJr purposes of reporting to a consumer reporting agency only, as appropriate, based on the results of the reinvestigation promptly-(i) modi fy that item of in Il)rmation: (ii) delete that item of information: or (iii) permanently block the reporting of that item ofinfonnation. 15 U,S.c. ~ 1681s-2(b)(1). Defendant argues that Plaintiffs FCRA claim fails beeausc she did not allege that ..thc consumer reporting agency notificd thc defendant furnisher of the dispute:' she did "not allege that Scterus failed to conduct an investigation into her dispute or that such investigation was unreasonable:' paymcnt obligations:' and because PlaintilTconceded "she was in dcfault of her ECF No, 21-2 at 21-22. In responsc, PlaintilTcontcnds that "[o]n a motion to dismiss, and prior to discovery, the foregoing allegations are sufficient to state a 1681s-2(b) claim:' ECF No. 25 at 12 (citing Wang \'. Asset Acceptance I.LC. No. C 09-04797 SI. 2010 WI. 2985503. at *5 (N.D. Cal. .Iuly 27, 2010) (finding PlaintifT adequately alleged FCRA claim and notcd ..[Defendant] Asset argues that [Plaintifq Wang needs to allcge additional facts about noticc, including when Trans Union notified Assct of thc dispute. but docs not explain how Wang or similarly situated consumers would have acccss to those 'facts' without formal discovery:} Thc Court agrees. Indeed, other courts have found that a consumer in Plaintiff's position satisfies the pleading requirements ofa 168Is-2(b) claim by allcging that she raised a dispute with the CRA, because it can reasonably be inferred that thc CRA per!llflned its statutory obligation and forwarded notice of the dispute to the furnisher. See C""per )'. Green Tree Serricing. LLe, NO.5: 14-CV -1750. 2015 WI. 18 5085770. at *4 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 27, 2(15)5 ncgating Dcfendants' Additionally. reasonable furnishers invcstigation arguments thatl'laintilTwas required to also plead that a are also unavailing. like [Defendant lundeI' ~ 1681 s-2(b) arc indcpendent a failure to conduct a reasonablc of~ 168 Is-2(b):' "[T]hc duties imposed upon and scverable. invcstigation allegations that a furnisher accurately rcport a dcbt as disputcd)). violated its duty to conduct a rcasonable I'laintilThas tinal argument for alleging rcvicwing investigation plaintiffs and its duty to mct her burdcn herc by alleging that on this claim, the Fourth Circuit has hcld "a credit report is not accuratc under FCRA ifit provides misleading impression:' 142. 148 (4th Cir. 2008). And"a may bc dccmcd 'inaccuratc' misleading as a predicate tailed to report her account as disputed. As to DetCndants' materially [l'laintitTlneed Wang. 2010 WL 2985503. at *5 (citing (Jorman \'. Wo/po/I"& Abramson. LU'. 584 F.3d 1147. 1155-64 (9th Cir. 20(9) (scparately Detcndants that to the contrary. was not conducted not assert. for cxample. a violation argumcnts Dcfendants' it is c1car 1I'om thc Complaint disputcs on hcr account. see ECF No. 17 '1'121. 27, 40. Plaintiff notilicd Scterus directly ofthc 50.63. Moreovcr. imprcssion:' information in such a manner as to create a Saunders \'. Br(//ICh Banking And Tl'1IslCo. of' VA. 526 F.3d consumer if the statemcnt !d Detcndants' report that contains technically is prescnted accurate inti.mnation in such a way that it crcates a cited cases to support tbe assertion detault barred her Irom bringing an FCRA claim are inapposite. that I'laintitrs In Beallie \'. ,valiollS Credil Fin. Sen's. Corp .. 69 F. App'x 585 (4th Cir. 20(3) the plaintiffs did not dispute the accuracy oflhc reports. In A/slon \'. Uniled Col/eclions Bureau. Inc.. No. CIV.A. DKC 13-0913.2014 859013, at *6 (D. Md. Mar. 4. 2014). the FCRA claim was dismissed WL. at the summary judgmcnt ~ PlaintilTal1cges in her Complaint that in addition to notifying Scterus about the disputes. she notified the eRAs directly ahout the disputes. ECF No. 171,11 46. 39. 19 stage. because the plaintilThad not adduccd sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact in light of evidence provided by defendant that it had performed a reasonable ill\"estigation. This case has not yet reached that stage. Ilere. Plainti ff disputes the accuracy of the reporting and has adequately pleaded that Defendants violated 16Sls-2(b) by failing to notate that her debt was disputed. Indeed. such a decision to report the debt without mention of a dispute could be "misleading in such a way to such an extent that it can be expected to have an adverse impact:' Sallndcrs. 526 FJd at 150. Defcndants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs FCRA claim is denied. i. Plaintiffs Motion for Suml1la~' .Judgment As with her RESP A claims. Plaintiff also moves Illr summary judgment on her FCRA claims. ECF No. 15 at 15. However. again. Plaintiff has not met her burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material exists with respect to her FCRA claims. Scc Johnson \'. Uni/cd S/a/cs. S61 F. Supp. 2d 629. 6~4 (D. Md. 2(12) (noting that "it is the paI1ies obligation. and not the COUI1' . to locatc and cite to the appropriate portions of the record that support argumcnts on s summary judgmcnt.") (internal altcrations omitted). PlaintilTmcrely asseI1s that ..there is no dispute that PlaintilTsubmittcd credit disputes to Scterus. that the CRAs lorwardcd notice of the dispute to Seterus. and Seterus failed to report the account as disputed:' Eel' No. 15 at J 5. Without discovery. howevcr. thc record docs not yct dcmonstratc the lilctual underpinnings of thc Defcndants' rcporting to the credit rcp0l1ing agcncies. Plaintiffs cross motion Illr summary judgmcnt on her FCRA claims is denied. 20 IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 21, is denied, in part, and granted, in part. The Motion to Dismiss is denied in all respects, except Plaintitrs claims under the MCPA are dismissed with the qualifications described above. Plaintitrs Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 25, is denied. A separate Order shall issue. D,,"",b~y 4;jt:--- tho" 6~zeI . United States District Judge 21 Cross

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?