Andrew Mellentine v. Ameriquest Mortgage Company, 515 F. App'x 419

Background

Mellentines obtained two mortgages in 2005, including an Otisville loan later secured by the Otisville property and a separate Owosso loan that was foreclosed previously.
The Otisville loan was assigned through a chain (WM Specialty Mortgage LLC → CitiResidential → MERS as JP Morgan’s nominee) with Chase as servicer at times.
Foreclosure proceedings were initiated in 2007–2010 but a 2010 inadvertent foreclosure was expunged, and ownership of Otisville briefly remained with the Mellentines.
In 2010, the Mellentines sent a Qualified Written Request under RESPA to Chase; Chase acknowledged and responded, but allegedly not timely.
Plaintiffs filed suit in Michigan state court in March 2011, which was removed to the Eastern District of Michigan; federal claims under TILA, HOEPA, RESPA, and the FDCPA were asserted.
After amendments, the district court dismissed, leaving RESPA and FDCPA claims; the court granted some motions to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings, and the case was ultimately denied for leave to amend informally.
The district court’s October 2011 order dismissed the case; the Mellentines appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Orlans is a debt collector under FDCPA	Orlans held itself out as a debt collector and pursued foreclosure for Chase’s debt.	Orlans is not a debt collector under the FDCPA’s scope when acting as counsel for a lender in a foreclosure.	Orlans can be a debt collector; the complaint plausibly states FDCPA liability.
Whether remaining FDCPA claims against Chase, MERS, WM, Ameriquest, CitiRL were properly dismissed	FDCPA claims timing and factual pleading were adequate to state claims.	Defendants lacked specific facts showing violations and some claims were time-barred.	We remanded or affirmed dismissal consistent with the FDCPA pleading standard; some claims were treated as waived.
Whether Chase’s RESPA claim survived pleading	Chase violated RESPA by responding late to the QWR and causing damages.	No damages or pattern of noncompliance pleaded under RESPA § 2605(f).	Complaint stated a RESPA claim; dismissal reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Whether Orlans’ RESPA claim on appeal was abandoned	RESPA claims against Orlans were preserved on appeal.	Issues not raised on appeal are abandoned.	RESPA claim against Orlans deemed abandoned on appeal.
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying leave to amend	Amendment should be freely allowed to cure pleading deficiencies.	No proper motion to amend; district court did not abuse its discretion.	Abuse of discretion not shown; district court did not err in not granting informal amendment.

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading required)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (facial plausibility required for claims)
Kottmyer v. Maas, 436 F.3d 684 (6th Cir. 2006) (pleading must raise plausible entitlement to relief)
J.H. Routh Packing Co. v. EEOC, 246 F.3d 850 (6th Cir. 2001) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard applied to pleadings)
Turner v. City of Taylor, 412 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2005) (abandonment/waiver rules for on-appeal issues)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1962) (leave to amend should be freely given)
Pulte Homes, Inc. v. Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am., 648 F.3d 295 (6th Cir. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard for denial of amendment)
Begala v. PNC Bank Ohio Nat’l Ass’n, 214 F.3d 776 (6th Cir. 2000) (amendment of pleadings standard)
Troxel Mfg. Co. v. Schwinn Bicycle Co., 489 F.2d 968 (6th Cir. 1973) (abuse of discretion in certain amendments)