Michaud v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association, Trustee

Filing 9

///ORDER granting 7 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. So Ordered by Judge Paul J. Barbadoro.(jna)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Robert W. Michaud
v.

Civil No. 13-cv-378-PB
Opinion No. 2013 DNH 175

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. as Trustee for
Wells Fargo Home Equity
Asset-Backed Securities 2005-3 Trust,
Home Equity Asset-Backed Certificates,
Series 2005-3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case arises from a loan granted to Robert and Piedad
Michaud by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. that was secured by a mortgage
on the Michauds’ home in Nashua, New Hampshire.

Mr. Michaud

claims he has entered into a binding loan modification agreement
with the current holder of the promissory note and mortgage,
HSBC Bank USA, N.A. as Trustee for Wells Fargo Home Equity
Asset-Backed Securities 2005-3 Trust, Home Equity Asset-Backed
Certificates, Series 2005-3.

He seeks to enforce this contract

and enjoin HSBC from foreclosing.

HSBC moves to dismiss the

complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
I grant the motion.

I.

BACKGROUND1

As consideration for a $219,600 home loan, Robert and
Piedad Michaud executed a promissory note payable to Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A on June 30, 2005.

The note was secured by a mortgage

on residential property that the Michauds purchased with the
loan proceeds; Wells Fargo was named mortgagee.

The Michauds

suffered a financial hardship in 2012, leading Mr. Michaud to
reach out to Wells Fargo in July of that year to inquire about
modification of his loan terms.

The Michauds paid the

Litigation Law Group (“LLG”) $4,000 to assist him with the loan
modification negotiations.

LLG worked with Wells Fargo until

April 2013, at which point LLG cut off its phone and email
service.

After several unsuccessful attempts to contact LLG,

Mr. Michaud learned from Wells Fargo that LLG had been issued a
cease and desist order.

Mr. Michaud alleges that LLG defrauded

him by retaining the $4,000 payment despite taking no action on
1

The facts are drawn from the First Amended Petition to Enjoin
Foreclosure (Doc. No. 6) and from the other documents provided
by the parties that are central to the complaint’s factual
allegations. See Beddall v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., 137
F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir. 1998) (“When . . . a complaint’s factual
allegations are expressly linked to — and admittedly dependent
upon — a document (the authenticity of which is not challenged),
that document effectively merges into the pleadings and the
trial court can review it in deciding a motion to dismiss under
Rule 12(b)(6).”).
2

his behalf to pursue a loan modification.2

Following this

revelation, Mr. Michaud continued to discuss loan modification
requirements with a loan preservation specialist at Wells Fargo.
On June 21, 2013, Wells Fargo assigned the Michauds’ note
and mortgage to HSBC but continued to service the loan on HSBC’s
behalf.

The Michauds presumably defaulted on their loan

obligations during this period – they do not claim otherwise and either HSBC or Wells Fargo scheduled a foreclosure auction
for July 24, 2013.

Two days before the sale was to occur, Mr.

Michaud filed a pro se3 petition with the New Hampshire Superior
Court to enjoin the sale, stating that “we need more time to
work with Wells Fargo – we need to stop [the] foreclosure . . .
.”

Doc. No. 3.

That same day, the court enjoined the sale

pending a hearing on the petition.

Before this hearing could

occur, HSBC removed the case to this court on August 23, 2013.
On September 13, 2013, Mr. Michaud amended his complaint to
allege that HSBC or its agent had recently offered to modify his
loan terms.

Mr. Michaud claims to have accepted this offer,

creating a binding loan modification agreement with HSBC.

2

LLG is not a party in this case.

3

The Michauds have since retained counsel.
3

On September 27, 2013, HSBC moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a claim.

Mr. Michaud filed an

objection to the motion on October 7, 2013.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff
must make factual allegations sufficient to “state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.”

See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

A claim is facially plausible when

it pleads “factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.

The plausibility standard is not akin to a

‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.”

Id. at 678

(citation omitted).
In deciding a motion to dismiss, I employ a two-step
approach.

See Ocasio–Hernández v. Fortuño–Burset, 640 F.3d 1,

12 (1st Cir. 2011).

First, I screen the complaint for

statements that “merely offer legal conclusions couched as fact
or threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action.”
Id. (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).
4

A claim

consisting of little more than “allegations that merely parrot
the elements of the cause of action” may be dismissed.

Id.

Second, I credit as true all non-conclusory factual allegations
and the reasonable inferences drawn from those allegations, and
then determine if the claim is plausible.

Id.

The plausibility

requirement “simply calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable
expectation that discovery will reveal evidence” of illegal
conduct.

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.

The “make-or-break

standard” is that those allegations and inferences, taken as
true, “must state a plausible, not a merely conceivable, case
for relief.”

Sepúlveda–Villarini v. Dep’t of Educ. of P.R., 628

F.3d 25, 29 (1st Cir. 2010); see Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
(“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level . . . .”).

III.

ANALYSIS

Mr. Michaud bases his amended complaint on his contention
that HSBC or its agent sent him a loan modification offer on or
about July 26, 2013.

The alleged offer includes the following

terms: (1) a reduction of the principal balance from $253,931 to
$228,537.90; (2) a reduction of the interest rate from six
percent to two percent; and (3) a reduction of the required
5

monthly payment from $1523.59 to $845.59.

Doc. No. 6.

The

Michauds claim that they have accepted this offer and seek to
enjoin the foreclosure and enforce the terms of this alleged
contract with HSBC.
I need not address the highly doubtful proposition that the
July 26 correspondence constitutes a valid offer, as Mr. Michaud
has failed to craft a plausible argument that the letter in
question originated from HSBC or its agent.

The letter states

that “[t]his public notice is courtesy of NMA Legal-Network
National Mortgage Aid.
lender.”

Doc. No. 7-4.4

NMA . . . is not a creditor or a
It further states that the

“[i]nformation [in this letter] was obtained from public record
sources.”

Id.

The letter includes “RE: Wells Fargo Bk NA”

4

HSBC presented a copy of this letter as an exhibit accompanying
its motion to dismiss. Doc. No. 7-4. The amended complaint
alleges that HSBC or its agent “sent a mortgage modification
proposal to the Petitioners” without explicitly mentioning a
letter. Doc. No. 6. The date and terms of the alleged offer
match those in the letter, and Mr. Michaud does not challenge
the letter’s authenticity, claim that it is not the offer in
question, or otherwise object to its introduction. See Doc. No.
8. I therefore consider it in deciding the motion to dismiss
without converting that motion to one for summary judgment. See
Beddall, 137 F.3d at 17 (“[T]he court’s inquiry . . . should not
be hamstrung simply because the plaintiff fails to append to the
complaint the very document upon which by her own admission the
allegations rest. . . . [Otherwise,] a plaintiff could thwart
the consideration of a critical document merely by omitting it
from the complaint.”).
6

above Mr. Michaud’s address, but in the context of the above
quoted text, this reference to Wells Fargo merely identifies the
loan that is the subject of NMA’s letter.
no other reference to Wells Fargo.
HSBC whatsoever.

The letter contains

It contains no reference to

On its face, it appears to be no more than a

common solicitation from a third party that has learned from
public records that a struggling homeowner involved in
foreclosure proceedings may be interested in its services.
Despite the letter’s obvious nature, Mr. Michaud claims
that “[t]he relationship between the offeror and the Respondent
in this action is a question of fact not susceptible to
dismissal based on the pleading.”

Doc. No. 8.

That might be

true had Mr. Michaud presented any evidence whatsoever to
establish that NMA had actual or apparent authority to act on
HSBC’s behalf.

See Dent v. Exeter Hosp., Inc., 155 N.H. 787,

792 (2007) (defining actual authority and noting that apparent
authority “exists where the principal so conducts itself as to
cause a third party to reasonably believe that the agent is
authorized to act” (quoting Boynton v. Figueroa, 154 N.H. 592,
604 (2006))).

As it stands, however, Mr. Michaud’s unsupported

allegation is merely a “legal conclusion[] couched as fact,” not

7

a plausible claim sufficient to survive dismissal.

See Ocasio–

Hernández, 640 F.3d at 12 (alterations omitted).
Mr. Michaud also argues in his objection to the motion to
dismiss that HSBC “overlooks . . . that the offer . . . is not
the only basis for enjoining the foreclosure,” noting that
“[t]he original Petition . . . clearly indicates that [Mr.
Michaud] was ‘working with Wells Fargo’ a [sic] the time of
receipt of the foreclosure notice but ‘need[s] more time.’”
Doc. No. 8 (last alteration in original) (emphasis omitted).

In

citing exclusively to the original complaint in support of this
claim, however, Mr. Michaud’s counsel overlooks the fact that
“an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint.”

See

Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Commc’ns, Inc., 555 U.S. 438, 456
n.4 (2009); accord Evergreen Partnering Grp., Inc. v. Pactiv
Corp., 720 F.3d 33, 40 n.2 (1st Cir. 2013).

Such an oversight

might be countenanced if Mr. Michaud remained pro se.

Now that

he is represented by counsel, claims raised in the original
complaint but not the amended complaint are deemed waived.

To

the extent that the amended complaint is intended to incorporate
a similar claim, see Doc. No. 6 (“The Petitioner continues to
work with Wells Fargo . . . but needs additional time.”), it
fails to state a viable cause of action.
8

See, e.g., Worrall v.

Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 2013 DNH 158, 15 (citing Schaefer v.
IndyMac Mortg. Servs., No. 12–cv–159–JD, 2012 WL 4929094, at *6
(D.N.H. Oct. 16, 2012), aff’d, 731 F.3d 98 (1st Cir. 2013);
Moore v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 848 F. Supp. 2d
107, 129-30 (D.N.H. 2012)).

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons I grant HSBC’s motion to dismiss
(Doc. No. 7).

The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and

close the case.
SO ORDERED.
/s/Paul Barbadoro
Paul Barbadoro
United States District Judge
December 19, 2013
cc:

Bradley M. Lown, Esq.
Michael R. Stanley, Esq.

9