Skrine v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Filing
12
OPINION AND ORDER finding as moot 3 Motion to Dismiss; granting 9 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Patrick J. Duggan. (MOre)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
THOMAS SKRINE
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Case No. 12-12916
Honorable Patrick J. Duggan
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.
_________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER (1) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS (ECF NO. 3) AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 9)
In the last several years, this Court has adjudicated numerous lawsuits filed by
homeowners attempting to set aside the sales of their homes via foreclosure proceedings.
The plaintiffs in those actions have asserted various unsuccessful theories to challenge the
foreclosure proceedings and claim superior title to the property. In most cases, despite
the fact that many plaintiffs proceeded pro se, the Court has been able to discern the
theories asserted. That is not the case in the current action, even though Plaintiff is
represented by counsel. Further, Plaintiff’s home has not been the subject of foreclosure
proceedings. The parties agree that he is, and always has been, current on his mortgage
payments. Nevertheless, Plaintiff has come to the courts seeking to invalidate, set aside,
or extinguish the mortgage on his property. As Plaintiff fails to set forth a coherent
argument as to why he is entitled to such relief, the Court grants Defendant’s pending
motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint.1
Factual and Procedural Background
On October 4, 2006, Plaintiff obtained a mortgage loan from Atlas Mortgage
Company, LLC (“Atlas”) in the amount of $147,000.00 related to real property on
Pleasantview Street in Lake Orion, Michigan (“Property”). (Def.’s Mot. Ex. 1; Pl.’s Am.
Compl. ¶¶ 7, 11.) On that date, Plaintiff executed a promissory note (“Note”) promising
to re-pay the loan, plus interest. (Id.) The Note identifies Atlas as the lender. (Id.) As
security for the loan, Plaintiff also executed a mortgage on the Property. Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), “as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s
successors and assigns,” is identified as the mortgagee. (Def.’s Mot. Ex. 2; Pl.’s Am.
Compl. ¶ 11.) The Mortgage also identifies Atlas as the lender. (Def.’s Mot. Ex. 2.) The
Mortgage was recorded in the Oakland County Register of Deeds on November 14, 2006.
(Id.)
At some point in time, Defendant became the servicing agent. (See Def.’s Mot.
Ex. 3.) There is no dispute that Plaintiff has timely made the monthly payments due on
the loan. (See Def.’s Br. in Supp. of Mot. 3; Pl.’s Resp. Br. at 6.)
On June 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant in the Circuit Court
for Oakland County, Michigan. In his initial complaint, Plaintiff asserted claims for
declaratory judgment and quiet title. Defendant removed Plaintiff’s complaint to federal
1
Because Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, the Court is denying as moot the
motion to dismiss that Defendant filed with respect to Plaintiff’s initial complaint.
2
court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction on July 3, 2012, and filed a motion to dismiss
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) one week later. In response,
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 30, 2012.
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint asserts one count to quiet title to the Property.
Plaintiff alleges in his Amended Complaint that “[t]he Skrine Mortgage was securitized.”
(Pl.’s Am. Compl. ¶ 16.) Plaintiff asserts that “Defendant, either currently or at some
point, alleges an interest in the Property as mortgagees [sic] with the right to foreclose
and terminate or cause to be terminated Plaintiff’s interest in the Property.” (Pl.’s Am.
Compl. ¶ 35.) Plaintiff further asserts that the mortgage is invalid, alleging:
The mortgage interest in the Property claims [sic] by Defendant or any
party as of yet unnamed but who may be named in this case following
discovery are invalid for one or more of the following reasons:
A. During the securitization process, the security interest (mortgage) was
severed from the note rendering the mortgage invalid;
B. The endorsement in blank did not create a valid security interest and thus
the mortgage, in its original form or as assigned, is invalid;
C. The initial recording of the mortgage by MERS invalidates any security
interest as it relates to foreclosure and improper title exists for any current
security interest due to the initial recording being made by MERS;
D. Violations of the pooling agreement in the underlying trust have severed
the mortgage from the note invalidating the security interest;
E. Defendants and other unnamed parties have violated Articles 3 and 9 of
the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted in Michigan invalidating the
security interest, i.e., the mortgage on the Property; and
F. Other acts of the Defendant and unnamed parties that become known
through ongoing discovery.
3
(Id. ¶ 36.)
Defendant responded to the Amended Complaint by filing a second Rule 12(b)(6)
motion on August 13, 2012. The motion has been fully briefed. The Court does not
believe that oral argument will aid in its disposition of the motion and therefore it is
dispensing with oral argument pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f).
Standard for Motion to Dismiss
A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests the
legal sufficiency of the complaint. RMI Titanium Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 78
F.3d 1125, 1134 (6th Cir. 1996). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a
pleading must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief.” To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint need not contain
“detailed factual allegations,” but it must contain more than “labels and conclusions” or
“a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action . . .” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 555, 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1964-65, 1974 (2007). A complaint does
not “suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertions’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 668 , 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 557, 127 S. Ct at 1966).
As the Supreme Court provided in Iqbal and Twombly, “[t]o survive a motion to
dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, 127
S. Ct. at 1974). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
4
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S. Ct. at 1965). The
plausibility standard “does not impose a probability requirement at the pleading stage; it
simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal
evidence of illegal [conduct].” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S. Ct. at 1965.
In deciding whether the plaintiff has set forth a “plausible” claim, the court must
accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true. Id.; see also Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007). This presumption, however, is not applicable
to legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 668, 129 S. Ct. at 1949. Therefore, “[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do
not suffice.” Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S. Ct. at 1965-65).
Analysis
In his pleadings, Plaintiff essentially is asking the Court to rescind the mortgage
and declare that he holds title to the Property free and clear of any encumbrances. He is
not entitled to such relief. Plaintiff acknowledges that he executed the Note and
Mortgage and received the loan proceeds. He has not alleged that he has paid the full
amount due under the Note. Finally, he alleges no basis to rescind the Note or Mortgage.
The only coherent arguments Plaintiff makes in his pleadings to challenge the Note
and/or Mortgage relate to severance of the Note from the Mortgage and securitization of
the loan. Neither argument, however, states a valid challenge to the interests of the
5
noteholder or the mortgagee (which, in any event, do not appear to be Defendant).2 See
Leone v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 12-10597, 2012 WL 1564698, at *3-4 (E.D. Mich. May 2,
2012) (collecting cases).
As such, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted and is granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss. In the
motion, Defendant seeks attorney’s fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The Court
declines to impose sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel at this time.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 3) is DENIED
AS MOOT;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED.
Dated:October 24, 2012
s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN
2
Notably, Plaintiff’s failure to name the noteholder or mortgagee as a defendant
renders his challenge to either instrument in this action subject to dismissal. With respect
to Defendant, Plaintiff does allege in the Amended Complaint that “Defendant, either
currently or at some point, alleges an interest in the Property as mortgagees [sic] with
right to foreclose and terminate or cause to be terminated Plaintiff’s interest in the
Property.” (Pl.’s Am. Compl. ¶ 35.) However, the issue of whether Defendant has the
right to foreclose is not ripe, as there has neither been a default nor the initiation of
foreclosure proceedings with respect to the Property. Should foreclosure proceedings be
instituted at some point in the future, Plaintiff can, at that time, challenge the right of the
foreclosing party to institute such proceedings. The Court notes, however, that under
Michigan law, Defendant may initiate foreclosure by advertisement proceedings as the
servicing agent of the mortgage. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 6003204(1)(d).
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Patrick J. Politano, Esq.
Lori McAllister, Esq.
Michael J. Blalock, Esq.
Brandon M. Blazo, Esq.
7
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?