Amenu-El v. Select Portfolio Servicing
1:17-cv-02008
D. MarylandOct 4, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Rhonda Amenu-El refinanced a Maryland mortgage multiple times; U.S. Bank held the loan and Select Portfolio Servicing (SPS) serviced it after 2016.
- Plaintiff sought a loan modification (allegedly HAMP-related); SPS denied modification requests and told her it did not offer HAMP modifications or that bankruptcy discharge made her ineligible.
- Plaintiff alleges SPS failed to credit payments, reported inaccurate default status to credit agencies, improperly demanded monies, threatened foreclosure, and provided inadequate or no responses to one or more Qualified Written Requests (QWRs).
- She sued in Maryland state court asserting MCPA, MCDCA, MMFPA, negligence, and RESPA claims; defendants removed to federal court and moved to dismiss.
- The court accepted the complaint allegations as true but applied Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards and Rule 9(b) particularity for fraud-based claims.
- The court granted the motion to dismiss in full, finding Plaintiff failed to plead the required factual particularity or essential elements for each claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MCPA: deceptive/unfair trade practices | SPS misrepresented or omitted loan status and communications, causing reliance and injury | Plaintiff failed to plead time, place, content, or identity of misrepresentations with particularity | Dismissed — plaintiff did not plead specifics or reliance adequately |
| MCDCA: improper collection/threat to collect invalid debt | SPS demanded improper/invalid sums and threatened enforcement knowing no right existed | Plaintiff alleges statutory language but offers no facts showing SPS knew debt was invalid | Dismissed — no factual support for defendants’ knowledge or reckless disregard |
| MMFPA: mortgage fraud by misstatements/omissions | SPS knowingly made/used false statements/documents in mortgage process to defraud Plaintiff | Plaintiff pleads conclusory intent and bad faith but not details of fraudulent statements or scienter | Dismissed — failed to plead details or intent to defraud with particularity |
| Negligence (including bad faith) | SPS negligently serviced loan, misrepresented options, breached duties, acted in bad faith | Relationship is contractual; no independent tort duty by servicer; negligent breach of contract insufficient absent independent duty | Dismissed — no duty owed; negligent-breach theory and independent bad faith claim fail |
| RESPA: failure to acknowledge/respond to QWR / investigate error | SPS failed to timely acknowledge/respond to QWR(s) or to investigate errors | Plaintiff either alleges SPS did respond to a QWR or fails to attach/describe any QWR or alleged error | Dismissed — no valid QWR pleaded or response inadequacy properly alleged |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: legal conclusions not assumed true)
- Marchese v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 917 F. Supp. 2d 452 (D. Md. 2013) (MCPA requires time, place, content, identity of misrepresentations)
- Stewart v. Bierman, 859 F. Supp. 2d 754 (D. Md. 2012) (MCDCA requires allegation defendants knew debt was invalid)
- Lembach v. Bierman, [citation="528 F. App'x 297"] (4th Cir. 2013) (affirming dismissal where plaintiff failed to show defendants had reason to doubt debt validity)
- Bowers v. Bank of America, N.A., 905 F. Supp. 2d 697 (D. Md. 2012) (mortgage servicer generally owes no tort duty to borrower)