Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alston v. Flagstar Bank, F.S.B.

United States District Court, District of Columbia

September 18, 2013

THOMAS ALSTON, Plaintiff,
v.
FLAGSTAR BANK, F.S.B., Defendant

Re Document Nos.: 3, 6.

THOMAS ALSTON, Plaintiff, Pro se, Largo, MD.

For FLAGSTAR BANK, F.S.B., Defendant: Andrew K Stutzman, LEAD ATTORNEY, STRADLEY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP, Philadelphia, PA; Zeenat Asra Iqbal, STRADLEY RONON STEVENS YOUNG LLP, Washington, DC.

OPINION

Page 15

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Granting the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice; Denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions

I. INTRODUCTION

The plaintiff is an individual who entered into a Deed of Trust regarding residential real estate with the defendant, Flagstar Bank. The plaintiff satisfied the debt, and claims that the defendant is in breach of contract because it failed to subsequently surrender the original note. Further, the plaintiff claims that because the defendant sent the plaintiff the original note by regular mail, as opposed to a more reasonable means, and it went missing thereafter, the defendant engaged in negligence. The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss, and the plaintiff has filed a motion for sanctions. Because the plaintiff has not advanced a claim that is ripe for adjudication now, his claims are dismissed without prejudice, with the Court noting that if the harm materializes in the future, he may bring suit again within the applicable statute of limitations period. Further, because the defendant has not engaged in any bad faith in filing its meritorious motion to dismiss, the plaintiff's motion for sanctions is denied.

II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[1]

On August 29, 2003, the plaintiff entered into a Deed of Trust [2] (" mortgage contract" ) with the defendant regarding residential real estate located in the District of Columbia. Compl. ¶ 4. On May 27, 2004, the plaintiff obtained a loan from BNC mortgage, and satisfied the mortgage debt with the defendant. Id. ¶ 6. The defendant did not timely surrender the note after the plaintiff satisfied the debt. Id. ¶ 7. Over the years, the plaintiff made several unsuccessful requests for the defendant to surrender the note. Id. ¶ 8. In Janury of 2010, the plaintiff sent the defendant further correspondence, requesting that the note be returned. Id. ¶ 9. On February 11, 2010, the defendant sent the plaintiff correspondence via certified mail, which stated that the defendant had forwarded him the original note via regular U.S. mail, and that it was enclosing a certified true copy of the note. Id. ¶ 10. The plaintiff alleges that to date, he has never received the original note. Id.

The plaintiff has filed this action, alleging that the defendant breached the contract by failing to surrender the original note to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further claims that the defendant engaged in negligence by sending the original note via regular mail, instead of by a more reasonable means. In response, the defendant has filed a motion to dismiss. The plaintiff has filed a motion for sanctions, contending

Page 16

that the defendant has engaged in bad faith in filing its motion to dismiss. The court now turns to the parties' arguments ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.