Boyd v. U.S. Bank, N.A.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39609
| N.D. Ill. | 2011Background
- Boyd filed a putative class action against U.S. Bank, N.A. and Wilshire Credit (n/k/a Bank of America) under ECOA, ICFA, and Illinois common law.
- Loans were owned by a trust with U.S. Bank as trustee; Wilshire and Bank of America serviced the loan.
- Foreclosure actions were initiated in Cook County in August 2009 after Boyd’s default and bankruptcy filings in 2005, 2007, 2009.
- In 2009, Boyd sought a HAMP modification and alleged Defendants failed to evaluate eligibility and notify him, while later committing an unlawful entry and padlocking of his home.
- Counts I–IV focus on ICFA unfair practices (IHPA, HAMP, and related conduct; IMFL dispossession; ECOA denial notice), with Counts V–VI asserting trespass and invasion of privacy.
- The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss; Astra USA subsequently instructed dismissal of Count III as a third-party beneficiary claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ICFA claims based on IHPA and HAMP survive. | Boyd contends IHPA/HAMP violations support ICFA unfairness. | IHPA/HAMP do not privately enforceable; cannot support ICFA unfairness. | Count I survives to the extent of common-law claims; IHPA-based ICFA claim is dismissed. |
| Whether ICFA claim based on dispossession without a foreclosure order is valid under IMFL. | Dispossession without a court order violates IMFL and supports ICFA unfairness. | IMFL does not provide private action; allegations insufficient on 12(b)(6). | Count II survives the Rule 12(b)(6) stage; independent IMFL violation pleaded. |
| Whether Count III (SPA breach) is viable after Astra USA decision. | Boyd is a potential third-party beneficiary of SPAs with Fannie Mae. | Astra USA forecloses third-party beneficiary status for private plaintiffs. | Count III dismissed with prejudice. |
| Whether Count IV ECOA claim is cognizable given a 'completed application' for HAMP. | Telephone submission with required financial information constitutes a completed application. | Need not allege written application; challenge denied for lack of 'completed application'. | Count IV survives the motion to dismiss. |
| Whether U.S. Bank may be liable as trustee for the alleged ECOA/ICFA claims. | Bank as trustee liable for acts of servicers; agency allegations support Rule 8(a) pleading. | Trustee status does not automatically imply liability; documents beyond pleadings. | Rule 8(a) pleading standards satisfied; U.S. Bank remains a defendant on surviving counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tamayo v. Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074 (7th Cir. 2008) (two-hurdle standard for Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for identifying viable claims)
- Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 201 Ill.2d 403 (Ill. 2002) (ICFA unfairness framework and public policy standard)
- Windy City Metal Fabricators & Supply, Inc. v. CIT Tech. Fin. Servs., Inc., 536 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2008) (unfair ICFA claim requires not all three factors; notice pleading suffices)
- Siegel v. Shell Oil Co., 612 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 2010) (case-by-case approach to ICFA unfairness)
- Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara Cnty., 563 U.S. _ (Supreme Court 2011) (private rights of third-party beneficiaries under government contracts clarified)
- Gainer Bank, N.A. v. Jenkins, 219 Ill.Dec. 809 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) (enforceability of ICFA based on non-enumerated statutes)
- Shurtliff v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 2010 WL 4609307 (D. Utah 2010) (mortgagee private rights under HAMP not automatic)