Hancock v. Bank of America, N.A. et al

Filing 56

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER granting 51 Defendant Bank of America N.A.'s Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Plaintiff's claims against the Defendant Bank of America, N.A. are hereby DISMISSED. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 2/11/15. (khm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:12-cv-00239-MR-DLH

KENNETH HANCOCK,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. and
)
RONALD BERG,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OF
DECISION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant Bank of
America, N.A.’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 51].
This action arises from the Plaintiff’s purchase of Lot 638 (the “Lot”) in
Grey Rock at Lake Lure (“Grey Rock”), a planned resort community in
North Carolina.

The Plaintiff first learned about Grey Rock through a

presentation given by Defendant Ronald Berg. After deciding to purchase
a lot, the Plaintiff then turned to Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of
America”) to finance his purchase.
Ultimately, Grey Rock’s developer, LR Buffalo Creek, LLC, failed to
complete the infrastructure and amenities in Grey Rock and subsequently
became insolvent, leaving the Plaintiff owning land with a value significantly

lower than the original purchase price. The Plaintiff then brought this action
against Bank of America and Ronald Berg, seeking to hold these
Defendants legally responsible for his losses.
The Plaintiff initially brought suit in one mass action with other
borrower-plaintiffs on December 8, 2011, but the Court severed all claims.
Carter v. Bank of America, Civil Case No. 1:11-cv-00326 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 8,
2011). The Plaintiff then refiled an individual Complaint.

Following the

Court’s Order granting in part and denying in part Bank of America’s Motion
to Dismiss, only Plaintiff’s claims for fraud and for violations of the
Interstate Land Sales Act (“ILSA”) and the North Carolina Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“Chapter 75”) remain pending against the
Defendants.
Bank of America now seeks summary judgment on the Plaintiff’s
remaining claims. While not consenting to an order for summary judgment
being entered against him, the Plaintiff concedes that there are no material
facts in dispute and that this case is factually and legally similar to other
Grey Rock cases in which Bank of America was recently granted summary
judgment. See Kaufman v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 1:12-cv-00228-MRDLH, Docs. 37, 38 (W.D.N.C. 2014); Percy v. Bank of America, N.A., No.
1:12-cv-00235-MR-DLH, Docs. 46, 47, 49 (W.D.N.C. 2014); Chan v. Bank
2

of America, N.A., No. 1:12-cv-00236-MR-DLH, Docs. 38, 39 (W.D.N.C.
2014); Callahan v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 1:12-cv-00243-MR-DLH,
Docs. 37, 38 (W.D.N.C. 2014). Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the
orders granting summary judgment in those previous cases, the Court
concludes that the Defendant Bank of America, N.A. is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law in this case. There being no motions pending with
respect to Ronald Berg, the Plaintiff’s action against this Defendant will
continue to proceed to trial.

ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant Bank of America
N.A.’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 51] is GRANTED, and the
Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant Bank of America, N.A. are hereby
DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3