Lamonica v. Fay Servicing, LLC et al

Filing 14

District Judge Timothy S. Hillman: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered denying 7 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. (Castles, Martin)

Case 4:18-cv-11376-TSH Document 14 Filed 12/21/18 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_______________________________________
)
DENNIS LAMONICA,
)
CIVIL ACTION
)
Plaintiff,
)
NO. 18-11376-TSH
)
)
v.
)
)
FAY SERVICING, LLC and U.S. BANK,
)
N.A. AS TRUSTEE FOR TRUMAN 2016
)
SC6 TITLE TRUST,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
(Docket No. 7)
December 21, 2018
HILLMAN, D.J.
Dennis Lamonica (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Fay Servicing, LLC and U.S. Bank
(“Defendants”) wrongfully foreclosed on his property at 60 Latisquama Road, Southborough,
Massachusetts (the “Property”). His Complaint asserts three claims: wrongful disclosure (Count
I), breach of contract (Counts II), and declaratory judgement that Defendants’ lacked standing to
foreclose (Count III). Defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted as to all three claims. (Docket No. 7). Plaintiff thereafter
voluntarily withdrew Count III but opposed Defendants’ motion with respect to Counts I and II.
For the reasons below, with respect to Counts I and II, Defendants’ motion is denied.
Background

Case 4:18-cv-11376-TSH Document 14 Filed 12/21/18 Page 2 of 5

The following facts are taken from Plaintiff’s complaint and documents incorporated
therein by reference and assumed to be true at this stage in the litigation. (Docket No. 1-1). 1
By deed dated March 14, 2007, and recorded with the Worcester County Registry of Deeds,
Plaintiff became the sole record owner of the Property. That day, Plaintiff was also granted a
mortgage loan, secured by the Property, in the amount of $349,200.00 (the “Mortgage”). The
Mortgage was subsequently assigned to several entities the last being U.S. Bank on June 29, 2017.
On July 14, 2017, U.S. Bank recorded the assignment. Fay Servicing is the loan servicer for U.S.
Bank for the Mortgage.
The Mortgage mandates that the “Lender shall give notice to Borrower prior to acceleration
following Borrower’s breach of any covenant or agreement in this Security Instrument.” (Docket
No. 8-1 ¶ 22). In addition, the Mortgage states:
All notices given by Borrower or Lender in connection with this Security
Instrument must be in writing. Any notice to Borrower in connection with this
Security Instrument shall be deemed to have been given to Borrower when mailed
by first class mail or when actually delivered to Borrower’s notice address if sent
by other means.
Id. ¶ 15.
On January 10, 2018, Defendants filed an Order of Notice in the Massachusetts Land Court
to determine Servicemember status of Plaintiff for the purpose of initiating foreclosure action
against him. On April 24, 2018, Fay Servicing filed an affidavit pursuant to Mass. Gen. L. c. 244
§§ 35B and 35C in furtherance of Defendants’ continuing efforts to foreclose on the Property.
According to Plaintiff, prior to acceleration and foreclosure, he never received notice in
accordance with the Mortgage.

1

I find that the Mortgage has been sufficiently referenced in Plaintiff’s Complaint as to be incorporated by
reference. (Docket No. 8-1). See In re Colonial Mortgage Bankers Corp., 324 F.3d 12, 15 (1st Cir. 2003)
(“These principles require us to consider not only the complaint but also matters fairly incorporated within
it and matters susceptible to judicial notice.”).

2

Case 4:18-cv-11376-TSH Document 14 Filed 12/21/18 Page 3 of 5

Standard of Review
A defendant may move to dismiss, based solely on the complaint, for the plaintiff's “failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must allege “a plausible entitlement to relief.” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 559, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). Although detailed factual allegations
are not necessary to survive a motion to dismiss, the standard “requires more than labels and
conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. at 555,
127 S.Ct. 1955. “The relevant inquiry focuses on the reasonableness of the inference of liability
that the plaintiff is asking the court to draw from the facts alleged in the complaint.” OcasioHernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 13 (1st Cir. 2011).
In evaluating a motion to dismiss, the court must accept all factual allegations in the
complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. Langadinos v.
American Airlines, Inc., 199 F.3d 68, 68 (1st Cir. 2000). It is a “context-specific task” to determine
“whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief,” one that “requires the reviewing court to
draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129
S.Ct. 1937 (2009) (internal citations omitted). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the
court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged—but it has
not ‘show[n]’—that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). On the
other hand, a court may not disregard properly pled factual allegations, “even if it strikes a savvy
judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955.
Discussion
According to Massachusetts law, foreclosure by power of sale requires that a foreclosing
bank comply with the terms of the mortgage. Mass. Gen. L. c. 183, § 21. If a bank fails to strictly

3

Case 4:18-cv-11376-TSH Document 14 Filed 12/21/18 Page 4 of 5

comply with the power of sale and the terms of the mortgage, then the foreclosure is void. U.S.
Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Schumacher, 467 Mass. 421, 428, 5 N.E.3d 882 (2014) (“Failure to comply
strictly with the power of sale renders the foreclosure void.”). Also under Massachusetts law, a
plaintiff asserting breach of contract must demonstrate that (1) an agreement was made between
plaintiff and defendant that was supported by consideration, (2) plaintiff was ready, willing and
able to perform, (3) defendant failed to perform a material obligation provided for in the contract
and (4) plaintiff suffered harm caused by defendant’s failure to perform. Coady Corp. v. Toyota
Motor Distributors, Inc., 346 F. Supp. 2d 225, 248 (D. Mass. 2003), aff’d, 361 F.3d 50 (1st Cir.
2004) (citing Singarella v. City of Boston, 342 Mass. 385, 387, 173 N.E.2d 290 (1961)). Here,
because the contract at issue is the Mortgage, both claims are predicated on an alleged breach of
the Mortgage agreement between the parties.
Defendant argues that “Plaintiff’s allegation that he did not receive notice fails to support
his claim for violation of the Mortgage’s power of sale clause only requires the mortgagee to ‘give
notice.’” (Docket No. 8, at 6). Defendant further notes that the Mortgage states:
All notices given by Borrower or Lender in connection with this Security
Instrument must be in writing. Any notice to Borrower in connection with this
Security Instrument shall be deemed to have been given to Borrower when mailed
by first class mail or when actually delivered to Borrower’s notice address if sent
by other means.
(Docket No. 8-1 ¶ 15). According to Defendant, it follows that even if Plaintiff’s factual
allegations that he did not receive notice are true, Plaintiff does not allege a violation of the state’s
foreclosure statute or a breach of the Mortgage.
Defendant correctly notes that even if Plaintiff did not receive notice, this fact is not
inherently violative of the terms of the Mortgage. Defendant does not, however, acknowledge the
reasonable inferences that that may be drawn (and at this stage in the litigation must be drawn in

4

Case 4:18-cv-11376-TSH Document 14 Filed 12/21/18 Page 5 of 5

Plaintiff’s favor) from the fact that Plaintiff never received notice. It is certainly a reasonable
inference that, since Plaintiff alleges to have not received notice, one was never sent. See U.S. ex
rel. Westmoreland v. Amgen, Inc., 812 F. Supp. 2d 39, 79 (D. Mass. 2011) (“Generally, evidence
of non-receipt is insufficient to rebut the presumption of receipt under the mailbox rule, but it does
present a triable question of fact whether the letter was properly sent.” (emphasis in original)); In
re Yoder Co., 758 F.3d 1114, 1117 (6th Cir. 1985) (“Testimony of non-receipt is evidence that the
notice was not mailed.”). Therefore, I find that it is plausible that Defendant never sent notice. 2
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Docket No. 7) is denied.
SO ORDERED
/s/ Timothy S. Hillman
TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN
DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Defendant also contends that it is “paradoxical” for Plaintiff to allege that no notice of default was sent
but also argue that any notice that was sent failed to contain the required information. Pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(d), however, “a party may set out 2 or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or
hypothetically, either in a single count or defense or in separate ones. If a party makes alternative
statements, the pleading is sufficient if any one of them is sufficient.” Accordingly, Plaintiff argues that
he never received any notice. This fact makes the inference that no notice was sent a plausible one. In
the alternative, Plaintiff argues that hypothetically, even if notice was sent, it did not contain the required
information. At this stage, nothing about Plaintiff’s alternative claims is improper.

5