Brock v. Thomas
782 F. Supp. 2d 133
E.D. Pa.2011Background
- Nolde, former owner of 6016 Keystone St., Philadelphia, alleges a ‘buyback loan’ scheme where he would sign over his deed to investors with the promise of refinancing and eventual return of title.
- Closing occurred June 29, 2007 at ALT offices; Buckman conducted the closing and plaintiff was not given copies of the closing documents, but believed he was securing a home-improvement loan.
- Buckman and the Foxworths allegedly paid themselves via a large initial loan check and a subsequent nearly $60,000 check; Buckman forged Nolde’s endorsement to deposit the second check into a Buckman-controlled account.
- Plaintiff alleges funds were diverted to Buckman and the Foxworths as kickbacks; he later learned the transaction actually conveyed title to the Foxworths and funded the defendants’ scheme.
- Defendants allegedly failed to make mortgage payments on the Pinnacle loan, leading to default, assignment of the loan to BAC and then to Residential Credit Solutions, and eventual foreclosure and loss of title to Nolde.
- Nolde filed an amended complaint on July 27, 2010 across two civil actions; several motions to dismiss followed, with the court denying them and addressing jurisdiction, joinder, statutes of limitations, and claims viability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over federal and state claims | Nolde asserts federal-question jurisdiction and related state claims are analyzable here. | Residential contends lack of jurisdiction due to bankruptcy disposition and improper framing of claims. | Court has concurrent jurisdiction; federal questions present and jurisdiction is proper. |
| Joinder of Pinnacle as necessary party | Pinnacle has an interest and should be joined to provide complete relief on RESPA and quiet title claims. | Pinnacle not necessary; Residential and others can adjudicate the claims. | Pinnacle is not necessary; complete relief available among existing parties. |
| Statute of limitations for UTPCPL, RESPA, and tort claims | Claims tolling and discovery principles toll limitations; timely by tolling and ongoing concealment. | UTPCPL timely issue is uncertain; RESPA statute of limitations should bar some claims; tort claims likely time-barred. | UTPCPL timely; RESPA not clearly time-barred at this stage; tort claims denied without prejudice due to discovery issues. |
| Stating a claim for RICO, UTPCPL, RESPA, and quiet title | Plaintiff pleads a RICO enterprise and fraud supporting UTPCPL and RESPA violations; seeks quiet title remedy. | Various counts lack adequate pleading or are barred by limits; economic loss doctrine and mispleading possible. | RICO counts I-II stated; UTPCPL adequately pled; RESPA and quiet title viable; overall defenses rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (federal question jurisdiction and pendent state claims.)
- Warden v. McLelland, 288 F.3d 105 (3d Cir. 2002) (pattern of racketeering; pleading standards for RICO.)
- Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) (RICO conspiracy requires showing of co-conspirator acts.)
- Sadtler v. Jackson-Cross Co., 402 Pa. Super. 492, 587 A.2d 727 (Pa. Super. 1991) (discovery rule considerations for statute of limitations.)
- Duquesne Light Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 66 F.3d 604 (3d Cir. 1995) (economic loss doctrine limits tort recoveries in contract-based contexts.)