552 F. App'x 908
11th Cir.2014Background
- Amadou and Merlande Wane sued TLC and BankUnited in state court seeking to quiet title and alleging rescission under TILA; FDIC removal and a partial settlement occurred before remand.
- Wanes alleged defective TILA disclosures (interest rate, payment schedule, yield spread premium, certain fees) and that they mailed a notice of rescission; closing disclosures and HUD‑1 were in the record showing many disclosures were made at closing.
- BankUnited moved to dismiss rescission claims, arguing protections for assignees after an involuntary assignment (15 U.S.C. § 1641(a)) and failure to plead a TILA rescission; district court dismissed rescission but allowed quiet title claim to proceed.
- On cross‑summary judgment motions, the district court denied the Wanes’ summary judgment to quiet title and granted BankUnited summary judgment on counterclaims for breach of contract and money lent (original principal $400,000), finding BankUnited had an enforceable interest and the Wanes defaulted.
- Wane challenged (1) BankUnited’s standing based on the allonge endorsement and officer authority, (2) enforceability due to unpaid documentary stamp tax on increased principal from negative amortization, and (3) TLC’s licensure. The district court rejected these contentions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to rescind under TILA | Wane: disclosures were improper (interest, YSP, payment schedule, fees) and rescission notice was mailed | BankUnited: disclosures at closing were adequate; even if defective, assignees protected after involuntary assignment | Court: Wane failed to plead facts showing a TILA rescission right; dismissal affirmed (district court reached correct result) |
| Quiet title / standing (allonge & officer authority) | Wane: Jennifer Jones lacked VP authority to endorse; allonge not properly affixed, so transfer ineffective | BankUnited: Jones was a corporate officer authorized to assign; allonge represented as affixed and supports enforceable interest | Court: Jones as corporate officer could assign; Wane’s affidavit lacked personal knowledge about affixation; BankUnited had enforceable interest — summary judgment for BankUnited affirmed |
| Enforceability re: documentary stamp taxes (negative amortization) | Wane: increase in principal due to negative amortization requires additional documentary stamp tax; failure renders note unenforceable | BankUnited: unpaid tax applies to ‘‘future advances’’ under Fla. law, not to negative amortization; no genuine factual dispute | Court: Negative amortization is not a future advance under Fla. law; tax argument fails — summary judgment for BankUnited affirmed |
| Broker licensure | Wane: TLC was unlicensed at relevant time, making the note unenforceable | BankUnited: evidence shows the relevant TLC license at the closing location was active | Court: Record shows license active where mortgage brokered; licensing challenge does not create genuine issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Speaker v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs. Ctrs. for Disease Control & Prevention, 623 F.3d 1371 (11th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must present more than speculative allegations)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (requirement for factual plausibility in pleadings)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine issue at summary judgment)
- Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley, 694 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2012) (appellate affirmance may rest on any correct ground supported by record)
- WM Specialty Mortg., LLC v. Salomon, 874 So.2d 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (mortgage follows assignment of underlying debt)