Lettenmaier et al v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation et al
Filing
63
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION & ORDER: The FDCPA claim against NWTS is dismissed. The Answer filed by NWTS on June 3, 2011, is stricken. See 4-page opinion & order attached. Signed on 8/8/2011 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
ROBERT W. LETTENMAIER, an
individual, LESLIE A. LETTENMAIER,
an individual, and ALPHA
FOUNDATION,
No. CV-11-156-HZ
Plaintiffs,
v.
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC., WELLS FARGO
BANK, N.A., and NORTHWEST TRUSTEE
SERVICES, INC., a Washington
Corporation,
Defendants.
///
///
///
1 - SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION & ORDER
SUPPLEMENTAL
OPINION & ORDER
Robert W. Lettenmaier
Leslie A. Lettenmaier
ALPHA Foundation
17878 SE Scrutton Lane
Milwaukie, Oregon 97267
Plaintiffs Pro Se
Teresa M. Shill
ROUTH CRABTREE OLSEN, P.C.
11830 S.W. Kerr Parkway, Suite 385
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035-1249
Attorney for Defendant Northwest Trustee Service
HERNANDEZ, District Judge:
Defendant Northwest Trustee Service (NWTS) previously moved to dismiss the claims
brought against it by plaintiffs Robert and Leslie Lettenmaier and Alpha Foundation in this
foreclosure-related action. In a May 20, 2011 Opinion & Order (dkt #38), I granted NWTS's
motion in part and denied it in part.
Specifically, I granted the motion as to plaintiffs' claim brought under the Oregon Trust
Deed Act, Oregon Revised Statutes (O.R.S.) 86.705-86.795, and as to plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim. May 20. 2011 Op. & Ord. at pp. 16. The basis for the dismissal of those claims,
as explained in the May 20, 2011 Opinion, was that the Lettenmaiers were defendants in a prior
state court Forcible Entry & Detainer (FED) action where they either raised, or had the
opportunity to raise, issues related to the title of the real property at issue in the case. Id.
Because NWTS was in privity with FreddieMac, the plaintiff in the FED action, these two claims
against NWTS in the instant federal case which were based on a challenge to the property's title,
were precluded by the doctrine of claim preclusion. Id.
2 - SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION & ORDER
I denied the motion as to the claim plaintiffs brought under the federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. ยงยง 1692-1692o (FDCPA), concluding that NWTS was a debt
collector for the particular type of FDCPA plaintiffs alleged in the their Complaint. Id. at pp. 1622. NWTS did not argue that the doctrine of claim preclusion applied to the FDCPA claim. This
was understandable given that the Lettenmaiers could not have raised a FDCPA counterclaim in
the FED action. Following the filing of the May 20, 2011 Opinion, NWTS filed an Answer to
the Complaint on June 3, 2011 (dkt #48).
In a separate Opinion & Order resolving the remaining defendants' separately-filed
motion to dismiss, I revisited the FDCPA claim and upon closer examination, concluded that the
FDCPA claim is precluded under the doctrine of claim preclusion. Aug. 8, 2011 Op. & Ord (dkt
#62). As explained there, the sole basis of the FDCPA claim is that defendants lacked a valid
property interest. Id. at pp. 27-28. The FDCPA claim pivots on whether defendants had a valid
property interest and that question was, or could have been, litigated in the state court FED
action. Id. Thus, in that Opinion I determined that regardless of whether defendant Wells Fargo
was a debt collector, the FDCPA claim had to be dismissed. Id.
As noted in footnote 5 of the August 8, 2011 Opinion, the same conclusion regarding the
preclusion issue should apply to the FDCPA claim brought against NWTS. The FDCPA claim is
grounded in the assertion that defendants lacked valid title to the property and thus, any attempts
to foreclose violated the FDCPA. Because the issue of FreddieMac's valid title was, or could
have been, litigated as part of the FED action, the FDCPA claim must be precluded by the state
court FED judgment. I incorporate by reference the discussion of claim preclusion as explained
in the May 20, 2011 Opinion, and I further incorporate by reference the discussion of the
3 - SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION & ORDER
preclusion of the FDCPA claim as explained in the August 8, 2011 Opinion.
Accordingly, the FDCPA claim against NWTS is dismissed. The Answer filed by NWTS
on June 3, 2011, is stricken.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this
8th
day of
August
/s/ Marco A. Hernandez
Marco A. Hernandez
United States District Judge
4 - SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION & ORDER
, 2011
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?