Szmania v. First Horizon Home Loan Corporation

Filing 18

ORDER granting 11 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; denying 15 Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Judgment; this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

13

ORDER

Plaintiff,

11
12

No. 13-CV-5090-RBL

DANIEL SZMANIA,

(Dkt. #11, 15)

v.
FIRST HORIZON HOM LOAN
CORPORATION,

14

Defendant.

15
16
17
18

Plaintiff has filed a spectacularly frivolous suit and is hereby warned that further filing of
similar suits will result in sanctions.
FACTS

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In 2007, Plaintiff took out a $225,000 home-equity line of credit, secured by his home.
(Compl., Ex. A, Dkt. #3 at 12 (presenting Deed of Trust)). He currently owes $221,581.68.
(Compl., Ex. B, Dkt. #3 at 28.)
On January 4, 2012, Plaintiff tendered a $5.00 check in full “Accord and Satisfaction,” of
his outstanding debt. (Compl. ¶¶ 8–9.) First Horizon, apparently not recognizing Plaintiff’s
attempt to terminate his debt, applied the $5.00 against the debt. (Id.) Here, Plaintiff argues that
the debt has been satisfied, that he is entitled to damages, and he seeks a permanent injunction
preventing First Horizon from foreclosing on his property. (Id. ¶¶ 11–13.)
Plaintiff has also filed a lis pendens on the property.

Order - 1

LEGAL STANDARD

1
2

Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) may be based on either the lack of a cognizable legal

3

theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Balistreri v.

4

Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). A complaint must allege facts to state

5

a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949

6

(2009). A claim has “facial plausibility” when the party seeking relief “pleads factual content

7

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the

8

misconduct alleged.” Id. Although the Court must accept as true a complaint’s well-pled facts,

9

conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences will not defeat an otherwise proper

10

Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Vasquez v. L.A. County, 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007); Sprewell v.

11

Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide

12

the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a

13

formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be

14

enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

15

U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations and footnote omitted). This requires a plaintiff to plead “more

16

than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949

17

(citing Twombly ).

18
19

ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s suit is in bad faith and is dismissed. Under Wash. Rev. Code § 62A.3-311(a),

20

a party may discharge a debt if he “proves that (i) that person in good faith tendered an

21

instrument to the claimant as full satisfaction of the claim, (ii) the amount of the claim was

22

unliquidated or subject to a bona fide dispute, and (iii) the claimant obtained payment of the

23

instrument . . . .” Id. (emphasis added). In this case, Plaintiff’s tender of five dollars is, on its

24

face, a bad faith effort to avoid his debt—it is not any sort of an effort at “full satisfaction.”

25

Moreover, Plaintiff has not identified any “bona fide dispute.” He alleges merely that his debt

26

fluctuated every month, as debts that accrue interest are prone to do. (See Pl.’s Mot. for Decl. J.

27

at 4, Dkt. #15.) Plaintiff’s claims fail as a matter of law.

28

Order - 2

ORDER

1

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #11) is GRANTED. The Clark County Recorder’s

2
3

Office is hereby directed to cancel the lis pendens filed under Recorder’s No. 4931939.1

4

Plaintiff’s Motion for Declaratory Judgment (Dkt. #15) is DENIED. The case is DISMISSED

5

WITH PREJUDICE.

6

Dated this 5TH day of March 2013.

7
8

A

9

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

The Notice of Lis Pendens does not appear to be included in the record; however, the Court will rely on counsel’s
representation of the correct recording number. (See Def.’s Motion to Dismiss at 8:6, Dkt. #11; Yates Decl., Ex. A,
Dkt. #12.)
Order - 3