Tag: Motion to Dismiss

All Causes of Action Survive Motion to Dismiss in California Federal Case Against Bank of America

All Causes of Action Survive Motion to Dismiss in California Federal Case Against Bank of America

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thanks to Brian Davies for this one.  Prosper Law Group’s complaint in Johnson vs. HSBC Bank USA, NA as Trustee for the Ellington Trust Series 2007-1, Bank of America, NA and does 1 – 10 inclusive contains 7 causes of action.  The conclusion and order from Federal Judge Jeffrey T. Miller is:

For the reasons stated above, the motion to dismiss is DENIED. Defendants’ motion has failed to demonstrate that Plaintiff’s claims were implausible or precluded as a matter of law.

The following is an excerpt, but the rest is great reading also.

Excerpt

A. Viability of Attack on Loan Securitization
1. Ability to Challenge Loan Securitization
The threshold issue of whether Plaintiff can make any claim related to the loan’s securitization affects the viability of many of the individual claims discussed below. BOA cites Rodenhurst v. Bank of America, 773 F.Supp.2d 886, 899 (D. Haw. 2011) for its statement that “[t]he overwhelming authority does not support a cause of action based upon improper securitization.” However, the discussion cited in that case centers on plaintiffs who claim that securitization itself violates the agreement between the mortgagor and mortgagee. Here, Plaintiff does not dispute the right to securitize the mortgage, but alleges that as a result of improper procedures, the true owner of his mortgage is unclear. As a result, he has allegedly been paying improper entities an excess amount. Continue reading “All Causes of Action Survive Motion to Dismiss in California Federal Case Against Bank of America”

Texas Homeowner Survives Motion to Dismiss Against Bank of America

Texas Homeowner Survives Motion to Dismiss Against Bank of America

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Thanks to Deontos for this ruling.  Homeowners in Texas survive motion to dismiss in Swim vs. Bank of America et. al.

Excerpt 1:

Defendants represented to Plaintiffs that they would not foreclose during the loan modification process—but they did. Therefore, since Defendants foreclosed during the loan modification process without contacting Plaintiffs to inform them that their trial modification had been rejected, Plaintiffs state a claim for breach of contract.

Excerpt 2: 

Section 392.304(a)(19) prohibits a debt collector, in debt collection or obtaining information concerning a consumer, from using a fraudulent, deceptive, or misleading representation or deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain information concerning a consumer. Plaintiffs allege BOA representatives informed Plaintiffs they had provided the required documents and that it would not foreclose during the loan modification process, that BOA and/or BAC repeatedly required documents Plaintiffs already provided, and that BAC foreclosed on the Property during the loan modification process, despite representations that it would not, because Plaintiffs allegedly did not provide documents Plaintiffs claim they provided. The Court finds that such facts state a claim under TDCPA § 392.304(a)(19), and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss this claim under that section of the TDCPA is thus DENIED. Continue reading “Texas Homeowner Survives Motion to Dismiss Against Bank of America”

Texas Ropes One In: Motion to Dismiss Denied

Texas Ropes One In: Motion to Dismiss Denied

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.
http://www.dtc-systems.net

From April Charney:

…”If the holder of the deed of trust does not own or hold the note, the deed of trust serves no purpose, is impotent, and cannot be a vehicle for depriving the grantor of the deed of trust of ownership of the property described in the deed of trust….[finding that]…inherent in the procedural steps outlined in the Texas Property Code is the assumption that whatever entity qualifies as a “mortgagee” either owns the note or is serving as an agent for the owner or holder of the note; and, the statute assumes that when a foreclosure is conducted by someone other than the owner or holder of the note, the person conducting the foreclosure will be acting as agent or nominee for the owner or holder…Otherwise, the Texas statutory law would make no sense, and would be directly at odds with long-standing, basic principles governing the relationship between real estate borrowers, on the one hand, and their corresponding secured real estate lenders, on the other.” (edited from the below decision):
JANE McCARTHY, Plaintiff, vs. BANK OF AMERICA, NA, BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, and FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Defendants. NO. 4:11-CV-356-A December 22, 2011