Renfrow v. Fremont Home Loan Trust, et al
ORDER adopting 33 Memorandum and Recommendations and granting 30 Motion to Dismiss and 11 Motion to Dismiss - Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 07/10/2013. (Baker, C.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
RAYMOND A. RENFROW,
FREMONT HOME LOAN TRUST and
LITTON LOAN SERVICING,
This matter is before the court on the Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) of
United States Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr., regarding defendants’ motions to dismiss (DE
11, 30). No objections to the M&R have been filed, and the time within which to make any
objection has expired. This matter is ripe for ruling.
This civil action was removed by defendants from Wilson County Superior Court on August
24, 2012. Plaintiff, who appears pro se, filed a claim for recision of his home loan pursuant to the
Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., and seeks repossession of his property,
which was sold at auction on May 8, 2012, through an action of replevin. As discussed more
particularly in the M&R, the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s action for
replevin, which stems from a state order directing foreclosure sale. Furthermore, plaintiff fails to
state a claim for TILA recision where more than three years has passed since the loan closing,
resulting in a time-bar on plaintiff’s claim. TILA has subsumed any common law claims to rescind
a mortgage. Therefore, defendants’ motions to dismiss shall be granted.
Upon careful review of the M&R and of the record generally, having found no clear error,
the court hereby ADOPTS the recommendation of the magistrate judge as its own (DE 33), and, for
the reasons stated therein, defendants’ motions to dismiss are GRANTED (DE 11, 30). The clerk
of court is directed to close this case.
SO ORDERED, this the 10th day of July, 2013.
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge
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?