Bey v. Freedom Mortgage
OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 8/9/2017. Opinion was mailed to pro se plaintiff. (sbea, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
DONALD YOUNG BEY,
Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-00199-JAG
In May 2016, Donald Young Bey refinanced his mortgage loan, using Freedom Mortgage
as the lender. In March 2017, Young Bey filed a complaint against Freedom Mortgage seeking
possession of the home and damages. OnJune 19, 2017, the Court granted Freedom Mortgage's
motion to dismiss, but directed Young Bey to file a particularized complaint.
On June 30, 2017, Young Bey filed his particularized complaint. In it, he alleges fraud,
negligence, and breach ofcontract. Young Bey no longer seeks possession of his home.'
Freedom Mortgage has filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion gauges the sufficiency of a complaint. Goines v.
Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd, 822 F.3d 159, 165 (4th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, in evaluating such a
motion, courts typically focus only on the complaint, documents attached to the complaint, and
documents explicitly incorporated into the complaint by reference. Id. at 166. In appropriate
cases, however, courts may also (1) take judicial notice of public records, such as state court
records, and (2) consider documents submitted by the movant if the documents are integral to the
complaint and indisputably authentic. Id.\ Witthohn v. Fed. Ins. Co., 164 F. App'x 395, 396 (4th
' In his response to Freedom Mortgage's motion to dismiss. Young Bey noted that he had paid
his mortgage loan to date. (Opp'n 3.) Young Bey also attached a letter from Freedom Mortgage
confirming that it had terminated foreclosure proceedings.
Cir. 2006). When considering the complaint itself, courts must accept all allegations as true and
must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.
Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v.
Comumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir. 2009) (citing Edwards v. City of
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999)). The principle that a court must accept all
allegations as true, however, does not apply to legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009).
Considering the facts alleged in the complaint in light of these principles, to survive a
Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the complaint must contain sufficient facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face. Id. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged." Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 565 (2007)).
In this case, all claims alleged in the particularized complaint (i.e., fraud, negligence, and
breach of contract) fail because Young Bey has not alleged sufficient facts to state any plausible
claims for relief.
To establish fraud in Virginia, a plaintiff must show that the defendant intentionally and
knowingly made a false representation of a material fact with intent to mislead the plaintiff, and
that the plaintiffs reliance on the false representation resulted in damages.
Peckinpaugh, 241 Va. 172, 175, 400 S.E.2d 201, 203 (1991). Additionally, under the Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), a plaintiff must state the circumstances constituting fraud with
These "circumstances" include "the time, place, and contents of the false
representations, as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what he
obtained thereby." Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 784 (4th Cir.
1999). In this case. Young Bey alleges that Freedom Mortgage committed fraud when it
requested mortgage payments.
Freedom Mortgage, however, had a right to these payments
under the loan that Young Bey entered into. Other than this allegation. Young Bey does not
provide any facts about false representations made by Freedom Mortgage, let alone who made
those misrepresentations and when.^ Further, Young Bey gives no indication that he relied on
any of these facts to his detriment. Accordingly, Young Bey has not sufficiently stated a claim
for fraud, and the Court will dismiss this claim.
To establish negligence, the plaintiff must allege that the defendant owed the plaintiff a
legal duty, that the defendant breached that duty, and that the breach proximately caused the
plaintiffs injury. Blue Ridge Serv. Corp. ofVa. v. Saxon Shoes, Inc., 271 Va. 206, 218, 624
S.E.2d 55, 62 (2006). In the particularized complaint. Young Bey does not allege any facts
about a duty that Freedom Mortgage owed him or a breach of any such duty. Thus, the claim for
negligence also fails.
Finally, to establish a claim for breach of contract, the plaintiff must show a legally
enforceable obligation of a defendant to a plaintiff, the defendant's violation or breach of that
obligation, and injury to the plaintiff caused by the breach of the obligation. Filak v. George,
267 Va. 612, 619, 594 S.E.2d 610, 614 (2004). Here, Young Bey bases his breach of contract
allegation on House Joint Resolution 192 dated June 5, 1933. This resolution took the United
States off the gold standard. This resolution did not create a legally enforceable obligation
between Freedom Mortgage and Young Bey. Consequently, Young Bey's breach of contract
^ On August 8, 2017, the Court received a supplemental response from Young Bey to Freedom
Mortgage's motion to dismiss. In the supplemental response. Young Bey provides additional
facts not found in the complaint about Freedom Mortgage's allegedly fraudulent activities. Even
if the Court considered these additional facts, Young Bey has still not stated a claim for fraud
against Freedom Mortgage because he has not alleged facts to support the allegation that
Freedom Mortgage made false representations on which Young Bey relied.
For the reasons stated, the Court will grant Freedom Mortgage's motion to dismiss and
will dismiss all of Young Bey's claims with prejudice.
The Court will issue an appropriate order.
Let the Clerk send a copy of this Opinion to the pro se plaintiff and to all counsel of
United States Distn
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?