Rolfes et al v. Decision One Mortgage Company et al

Filing 29

ORDER granting 15 Motion to Dismiss. In light ofthe decision to abstain concerning plaintiffs' request to quiet title and plaintiffs' request for damages, the court stays the action. Defendants shall file a status update on the action to quiet title on June 30, 2011, September 30, 2011, and December 30, 2011. Signed by District Judge James C. Dever III on 5/27/2011. (Sawyer, D.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

NORTHERN DIVISION

No. 2:10-CV-66-D

BERNARD J. ROLFES, ill,
and JILL E. ROLFES,
Plaintiffs,

v.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

DECISION ONE MORTGAGE COJ\.1PANY, )
and HSBC MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC., )
Defendants.

)
)

On December 22, 2010, Bernard J. Rolfes, ill and Jill E. Rolfes ("plaintiffs") filed suit

against Decision One Mortgage Company and HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. ("defendants"),
concerning a mortgage loan that closed on October 27, 2006. Plaintiffs seek relief under federal law
and North Carolina law, ask the court to quiet title, and request actual damages of$l,799,688.65 and
punitive damages of $5,399,065.95. In response, defendants filed a motion to dismiss [D.E. 15]
under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.
In analyzing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, a court must determine whether the complaint is
legally and factually sufficient. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937,
1949-50 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,570 (2007); Coleman v. Md. Ct. of
Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010); Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298,302 (4th Cir.
2008); Goodman v. Praxair. Inc., 494 F.3d 458,464 (4th Cir. 2007) (en banc); accord Erickson v.

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89,93-94 (2007) (per curiam). In considering a motion to dismiss, a court need
not accept a complaint's legal conclusions drawn from the facts. Igbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50;
Nemet Chevrolet. Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com. Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009). Similarly,
a court ''need not accept as true unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments."
Giarratano, 521 F.3d at 302 (quotation omitted); see Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949-50.
As for plaintiffs' claims under the Truth in Lending Act(15 U.S.C. § 1601 etseq.), the Home
Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (15 U.S.C. § 1639), and Regulation Z (12 C.F.R. §
226.1 et seq.), the claims fail because the loan is not a "high cost" loan as defined in 12 C.F.R. §
226.32, and because the statute of limitations bars the claims.

See,~,

15 U.S.C. §§ 1635(f),

1639(a), 1640(e); Tucker v. Beneficial Mortg. Co., 437 F. Supp. 2d 584, 589 (B.D. Va. 2006).
Likewise, plaintiffs' claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act are time-barred. See
12U.S.C. § 2614;Zaremski v. Keystone Title Assocs., 884F.2d 1391, 1989 WL 100656, at *1 (4th
Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision); Mullinax v. Radian GUat. Inc., 199 F. Supp.
2d 311, 323-26 (M.D.N.C. 2002). Furthermore, on the facts set forth in the complaint, equitable
tolling cannot rescue plaintiffs. See, e.g., Irwin v. Dep't ofVeterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96 (1990);
Chaov. Va. D~'tofTransp., 291 F.3d 276, 283 (4thCir. 2002); Zaremski,1989 WL 100656, at *1;
Mullinax, 199 F. Supp. 2d at 326-32. Similarly, plaintiffs' state law claims ofbreach offiduciary
duty, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, fraud, and unfair and deceptive trade practices are barred by the applicable
three-year or four-year statute oflimitations. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-52, 75-16.2. Alternatively,
the state-law claims are not plausible under Igbal and Twombly. See, e.g., Coleman, 626 F.3d. at
190.

2

Finally, this court abstains from quieting title to the real property at issue. An action to quiet
title to the subject property is currently pending in Currituck County Superior Court, and plaintiffs
must seek the requested relief in that court. See, e.g., Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden
State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423,432 (1982); Youngerv. Harris, 401 U.S. 37,44 (1971); Laurel Sand
& Gravel. Inc. v. Wilson, 519 F.3d 156, 165-67 (4th Cir. 2008); Nivens v. Gilchrist, 444 F.3d 237,

241 (4th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, the court GRANTS defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint [D.E. 15]. In
light ofthe decision to abstain concerning plaintiffs' request to quiet title and plaintiffs' request for
damages, the court stays the action. See Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517U.S. 706,731 (1996);
Traverso v. Penn, 874 F.2d 209,213 (4th Cir. 1989). Defendants shall file a status update on the
action to quiet title on June 30, 2011, September 30,2011, and December 30,2011.
SO ORDERED. This 11 day of May 2011.

JA$.... .1~"y

J
SC.DEVERm
United States District Judge

3