374 F. Supp. 3d 378
E.D. Pa.2019Background
- Michael Bordoni and his wife purchased 1110 Moore Street in 2004; mortgage was in Bernadette's name though Michael signed mortgage documents and made payments after her death in 2010.
- Mortgage entered arrears in 2008; Chase offered forbearance and later approved a loan modification for Bernadette in January 2010.
- Bernadette died intestate June 16, 2010; Michael continued mortgage payments, did not open the estate until 2018, and later sought explanations from Chase about payment application and alleged forgeries.
- Michael sued Chase in 2018 asserting claims under RESPA, TILA, Declaratory Judgment Act, UTPCPL, and state-law claims for accounting, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.
- Chase moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing statute-of-limitations bars federal claims, economic loss doctrine bars UTPCPL, voluntary payment and existence of contract defeat other state claims.
- Court grants in part and denies in part: dismisses RESPA, TILA, declaratory judgment, UTPCPL, and unjust enrichment; allows accounting and breach of contract claims to proceed (dismissal of some claims considered without leave to amend as futile).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RESPA §2605 claim timeliness | Bordoni: Chase refused reasonable info requests about loan servicing | Chase: Claim is time-barred (RESPA §2614 three-year limit; loan closed 2004) | Dismissed — barred by RESPA statute of limitations |
| TILA disclosure claim timeliness | Bordoni asserted nondisclosure/fraud in loan documents | Chase: TILA claim time-barred (one-year limit) | Dismissed — plaintiff concedes statute of limitations |
| Declaratory judgment (based on RESPA/TILA) | Bordoni seeks declaration of rights tied to federal claims | Chase: Claim duplicates time-barred federal claims | Dismissed — cannot evade SOL by recharacterizing claim |
| UTPCPL — deceptive practices | Bordoni alleges misrepresentation of debt, excessive interest, forged signature | Chase: Economic loss doctrine bars UTPCPL because losses are contractual/economic | Dismissed — court follows Third Circuit precedent applying economic loss doctrine to bar UTPCPL |
| Accounting (state law) | Bordoni seeks accounting/payment history and restitution for improper charges | Chase: No demand alleged; as executor he could request records; equitable accounting inappropriate if legal remedy exists | Survives — legal accounting allowed as incidental to breach of contract claim |
| Breach of contract (mortgage/modification; forged rider) | Bordoni: Charged under unexecuted modification and rider with forged signature | Chase: Voluntary payment doctrine precludes recovery | Survives (at this stage) — voluntary payment defense premature on 12(b)(6) given forgery allegations |
| Unjust enrichment | Bordoni: Chase was unjustly enriched by excess interest and improper resets | Chase: Written mortgage governs; unjust enrichment unavailable where contract exists | Dismissed — relationship governed by written contract; unjust enrichment not available |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading plausibility standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- In re Community Bank of N. Va., 622 F.3d 275 (RESPA statute-of-limitations interpreted from date of loan closing)
- Werwinski v. Ford Motor Co., 286 F.3d 661 (Third Circuit applying economic loss doctrine to bar statutory claims)
- Algrant v. Evergreen Valley Nurseries Ltd. Partnership, 126 F.3d 178 (courts will not permit declaratory claims that evade statutes of limitations)
- Dittman v. UPMC, 196 A.3d 1036 (Pennsylvania Supreme Court on source-of-duty test for economic loss doctrine)
- Excavation Techs., Inc. v. Columbia Gas Co. of Pa., 985 A.2d 840 (Pa. Sup. Ct. application of economic loss doctrine)
- Benefit Tr. Life Ins. Co. v. Union Nat. Bank of Pittsburgh, 776 F.2d 1174 (unjust enrichment unavailable where express contract governs)
- Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469 (equitable accounting requires absence of adequate legal remedy)