Blake v. Bank of America, N.A.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24557
M.D. Ala.2012Background
- Susan Blake sued BAÑA and BAC over mortgage servicing relationships with Best Interest and Countrywide/ former lenders, seeking injunctive relief and damages.
- Blake alleged negligent and wanton mortgage servicing, breach of contract, third-party beneficiary rights under a PSA, and civil conspiracy.
- BAÑA acquired Countrywide’s assets; BAC acted as servicer; Best Interest aided with a loan modification that Blake may have memorialized in writing.
- Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss; injunctive relief was deemed moot, and some claims were dismissed.
- Plaintiff alleged loan modification would reduce payments from $1,345.73 to $991.69; modification purportedly documented, affecting contract claims.
- Court rejected several theories (no recognized tort for negligent/wanton servicing; no standing as third-party beneficiary; conspiracy insufficient under pleading standards).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Blake's request for injunctive relief ripe or moot? | Blake seeks relief related to foreclosure and standing; injunctive relief should not be dismissed outright. | Injunctive relief related to potential foreclosure is not ripe and should be dismissed. | Moot; injunctive relief claim dismissed. |
| Whether Alabama recognizes negligent or wanton mortgage servicing as a tort claim. | Servicer breached duties causing economic loss (misapplied payments, illegal fees). | No such tort recognized; economic loss from contract breach cannot support tort claim. | Dismissed; no cognizable negligent/wanton servicing tort under Alabama law. |
| Whether Blake can recover for first-party breach of contract or as a third-party beneficiary under the PSA. | Modification was memorialized in writing; Blake entitled to contract relief; PSA creates beneficiary rights. | If not properly memorialized, or incidental beneficiary, no standing for third-party beneficiary; defendants contend only incidental benefit. | First-party breach claim survives; third-party beneficiary claim dismissed. |
| Whether Blake's civil conspiracy claim states a valid cause of action. | Defendants conspired to charge illegal fees and foreclose improperly. | Conspiracy pleading requires more than bare allegations and must rest on a valid underlying tort. | Dismissed; conspiracy claim fails absent a valid underlying tort. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vines v. Crescent Transit Co., 85 So.2d 436 (Ala.1956) (negligent failure to perform a contract is a contract breach, not a tort)
- Barber v. Business Prods. Ctr., 677 So.2d 223 (Ala.1996) (mere failure to perform contractual obligation is not a tort)
- American Dist. Tel. Co. of Ala. v. Roberts & Son, 122 So.837 (Ala.1929) (contract breach and tort distinction in Alabama law)
- Marshall Cnty. Bd. of Ed. v. Marshall Cnty. Gas Dist., 992 F.2d 1171 (11th Cir.1993) (dismissal when no viable underlying facts supporting action)
- Pielage v. McConnell, 516 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir.2008) (pleading standard; plausibility required under Twombly and Iqbal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plaintiff must plead plausible claims, not mere conclusions)
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must show plausible entitlement to relief)