United States District Court, D. Columbia.
MICHELE RENEE COLEY, Plaintiff, Pro se, Washington, DC.
For BANK OF AMERICA, successor to COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, MORRIS HARDWICK SCHNEIDER, Defendants: Patrick Robert Jules, LEAD ATTORNEY, MORRIS HARDWICK SCHNEIDER, Baltimore, MD.
For COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants: Patrick Robert Jules, LEAD ATTORNEY, MORRIS HARDWICK SCHNEIDER, Baltimore, MD.
Emmet G. Sullivan, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Michele Renee Coley, proceeding pro se, brings this action alleging, inter alia, fraud, deceptive practices, and unfair business practices against Bank of America Corp., successor to Countrywide Financial Corp., Morris Hardwick Schneider (hereinafter " MHS" ), and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (hereinafter " MERS" ). Pending before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by Bank of America and MHS pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Upon consideration of the motions, the opposition and replies thereto, the applicable law, and the record as a whole, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motions to dismiss. Additionally, Ms. Coley has failed to state a claim against MERS. The Court dismisses this action against MERS, sua sponte.
On April 13, 2007, Plaintiff Michele Renee Coley, a Washington D.C. resident, was issued a $247,000 mortgage loan by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., which was later bought by Defendant Bank of America. Am. Compl. ¶ ¶ 7; Bank of America's Mot. to Dismiss (hereinafter " BAC Mot. to Dismiss" ) at 3. The mortgage loan, a 30-year fixed rate loan secured by real property located at 734 Kenyon Street NW, Washington, D.C. 20010, was reduced to a Deed of Trust and Promissory Note. Am. Compl. ¶ ¶ 31-33; BAC Mot. to Dismiss at 3. According to Ms. Coley, the payment term ensured that the bulk of her monthly payment would be applied to interest and that there would be very little principal reduction in the first 15 years. Am. Compl. ¶ 41.
Ms. Coley alleges that the manner in which the loan was issued was fraudulent because Defendants failed to determine whether she would be able to repay the loan. Id. ¶ ¶ 42-46. Specifically, she alleges that the originator of the loan created a fictional income figure to obtain approval for the loan. Id. ¶ 38. She also alleges that the loan had a 68.87% loan-to-value ratio, which made it " toxic." Id. Plaintiff claims that this type of loan is likely to strain the borrower, and notes that Defendant never advised her of the risks associated with the loan. Id. ¶ ¶ 51-53. Finally, she alleges that Defendants " breached their duty to [her] because [they] knew, or should have known, that [she] would, or had a strong likelihood of defaulting on this loan." Id. ¶ 56.
At an unspecified time after the loan was issued, Ms. Coley applied for a loan modification, which was denied. Am. Compl. ¶ 36. Plaintiff alleges that there was an offer and acceptance of the modification, but it did not ultimately take place. Id. According to Plaintiff, the reason for the denial was that Bank of America either did not have possession of the note or could not locate it. Id. ¶ 37. On or about October 12, 2009, Plaintiff defaulted on her
loan. BAC Mot. to Dismiss at 4. Notice of the Foreclosure Sale was recorded among the land records in Washington, D.C. on November 4, 2009. However, prior to the sale, Bank of America canceled the sale. It has not since sought to foreclose on the property. Id.
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant Bank of America on October 5, 2012. Bank of America filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiff filed an opposition Defendant's motion to dismiss as well as a motion to strike. In those pleadings, Plaintiff raised new claims sounding in fraud and pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (hereinafter " FDCPA" ), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (hereinafter " RESPA" ), 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. Given the obligation of the Court to construe pro se filings liberally, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint stating clearly all of her claims against Defendant. See April 12, 2013 Minute Order. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on May 13, 2013 and added MHS and MERS as Defendants. Both Bank of America and MHS have ...