Myers v. Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas

Filing 30

Magistrate Judge Judith G. Dein: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER allowing 25 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (Dambrosio, Jolyne)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

DONNIE MYERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST
AMERICAS, AS TRUSTEE RALI
2006-QS4,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 14-10259-JGD

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER
ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
September 8, 2014
DEIN, U.S.M.J.
I. INTRODUCTION
The defendant Deutsche Bank Trust Americas, as Trustee RALI 2006-QS4
(“Deutsche”), purports to be the holder of a mortgage that the plaintiff, Donnie Myers
(“Myers”), granted to MERS as nominee for Homecomings Financial Network, Inc. in
2006. See Am. Compl. (Docket No. 24) ¶ 4, Ex. A. The mortgage encumbered real
property located at 50 Magnolia Street, Boston, Massachusetts – the plaintiff’s home.
See id. at ¶ 21. The mortgage is in default, and Deutsche commenced foreclosure
proceedings by filing an action in the Massachusetts Land Court to determine if Myers
was entitled to benefits under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. app. § 501
et seq. (“SCRA”) (the “Land Court action or proceeding”). See id. at ¶ 3, Ex. A.

Thereafter, Myers commenced this matter challenging, inter alia, Deutsche’s actions in
bringing the Land Court proceeding. Specifically, Myers challenges Deutsche’s standing
as holder of the mortgage, alleges that Deutsche failed to give him notice of the Land
Court proceeding by listing an improper address for him, alleges that the court filings
made by Deutsche regarding its publication of notice of the Land Court action were
inaccurate, and contends that Deutsche could not commence the Land Court proceedings
because it did not have a registered agent at the time suit was filed.1 Such actions,
according to Myers, constitute fraud (Count I) and misrepresentation (Count II).
This matter is before the court on the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint (Docket No. 25). By this motion, Deutsche is seeking dismissal of the entire
complaint on the grounds, inter alia, that Myers lacks standing to challenge the sufficiency of the Land Court proceeding since, it is undisputed, he is not in the military. The
parties have consented to the Magistrate Judge’s final jurisdiction over this case pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). For the reasons detailed herein, this court agrees that Myers
cannot challenge the sufficiency of the Land Court action. The motion to dismiss
(Docket No. 25) is ALLOWED.

1

The Amended Complaint itself is somewhat confusing, but counsel clarified the
allegations at oral argument and confirmed that Deutsche’s filing of the Land Court action formed
the crux of the instant case.
-2-

II. ANALYSIS
When ruling on a motion to dismiss brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the
court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts, and give the plaintiff the benefit of all
reasonable inferences. See Cooperman v. Individual, Inc., 171 F.3d 43, 46 (1st Cir.
1999). “Ordinarily, a court may not consider any documents that are outside of the
complaint, or not expressly incorporated therein, unless the motion is converted into one
for summary judgment.” Alt. Energy, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 267 F.3d
30, 33 (1st Cir. 2001). “There is, however, a narrow exception ‘for documents the
authenticity of which are not disputed by the parties; for official public records; for
documents central to plaintiff[’s] claim; or for documents sufficiently referred to in the
complaint.’” Id. (quoting Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1993)). Applying
this standard to the instant case, this court will consider the filings in the Land Court
action and the documents filed with the Registry of Deeds, copies of which are attached
to the parties’ pleadings.
Myers Lacks Standing to Challenge Land Court Action
It is undisputed that Deutsche, as the purported holder of a mortgage given by
Myers, filed a complaint in equity in the Land Court, under the Massachusetts Soldiers’
and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act, to determine if Myers was entitled to foreclosure protections under the SCRA. See HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Matt, 464 Mass. 193, 194, 981
N.E.2d 710, 713-14 (2013) (the Massachusetts Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act
“provides a procedural framework for ascertaining whether mortgagors are entitled to
-3-

protections under the SCRA”). “Servicemember proceedings ‘occur independently of the
actual foreclosure itself and of any judicial proceedings determinative of the general
validity of the foreclosure.’” Id. 196, 981 N.E.2d at 715 (quoting Beaton v. Land Court,
367 Mass. 385, 390, 326 N.E.2d 302, 305 (1975)). The purpose of such proceedings is to
protect persons “in the military service or recently discharged therefrom” in connection
with the foreclosure of their properties. Beaton, 367 Mass at 390, 326 N.E.2d at 305.
The proceeding is “limited to the determination of a very limited issue: whether the
defendant is entitled to the benefits of the SCRA.” JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v.
Healey, No. 12-11922-JCB, 2014 WL 1348033, *1 (D. Mass. April 2, 2014) (and
authorities cited).
The Massachusetts Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Relief Act makes it clear that only those
defendants who are entitled to the protection of the SCRA, or those acting on their behalf,
are entitled to appear and be heard in the Land Court proceeding. HSBC, 464 Mass. at
198, 981 N.E.2d at 717. Thus, mortgagors who are not entitled to the protection of the
SCRA have no standing to appear in the Land Court proceeding. This is true irrespective
of the type of challenge being proffered by the mortgagor. For example, a nonserviceman cannot bring a claim in the servicemen’s proceeding challenging the validity
of the mortgage or the mortgagee’s right to foreclose on the property. See id. at 194, 981
N.E.2d at 714 (mortgagor has no standing to assert in Land Court Servicemen’s action
that the mortgagee did not hold the note or mortgage); Beaton, 367 Mass. at 389 n.5; 326
N.E.2d at 305 n.5 (mortgagor cannot assert in Land Court Servicemen’s proceeding a
-4-

claim that the notice issued in the Land Court proceeding was unconstitutional, or that
another bill in equity to redeem and discharge the mortgage was pending, or that there
had been no breach of condition of the mortgage).
In the instant case, Myers is not seeking to assert his rights as a serviceman. In
fact, it is undisputed that he is not entitled to the protection of the SCRA. Since he was
not entitled to appear and be heard in the Land Court action, his contention that Deutsche
had improperly deprived him of notice of the proceeding by listing an incorrect address
does not state a claim. Similarly, Myers’ challenge to Deutsche’s filing of the Land
Court action because it allegedly was not the holder of his mortgage, or did not have a
registered agent, cannot be maintained, since he had no right to appear in the Land Court
proceeding. The same is true with respect to his contention that Deutsche’s filings with
the Land Court were false and misleading. In sum, even accepting as true the allegations
of the Complaint, Myers has failed to state a cognizable claim against Deutsche relating
to its actions in initiating and prosecuting the Land Court proceeding.2
III. ORDER
For all the reasons detailed herein, the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the
Amended Complaint (Docket No. 25) is ALLOWED. However, the dismissal will be
without prejudice, as the record is insufficient to determine whether the plaintiff cannot
state any cause of action against Deutsche.

2

In light of this conclusion this court will not address Deutsche’s other challenges to the
sufficiency of the Complaint.
-5-

/ s / Judith Gail Dein
Judith Gail Dein
U.S. Magistrate Judge

-6-