Buckentin v. Suntrust Mortgage Corp.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29524
N.D. Ala.2013Background
- Plaintiffs bought the home in 2007 for about $900,000, financed by Wells Fargo; GenEquity Mortgage issued the note and mortgage; SunTrust became servicer around May 2010.
- Chinese drywall problems were identified in 2010, with related litigation; settlement is tentative but remediation is in process.
- Forbearance agreements were offered: September–November 2010, and retroactive for December 2010–February 1, 2011; Plaintiffs stopped paying in August 2010.
- Foreclosure was approved in December 2010 but not completed; Johnson & Freedman were hired to initiate foreclosure; no foreclosure sale occurred.
- Plaintiffs alleged multiple harms (fraud, breach, negligence, etc.) and RESPA/FDCPA claims; SunTrust seeks summary judgment on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful foreclosure claim viability | Buckentins claim SunTrust foreclosed while in default; foreclosure sale occurred as a basis for liability. | No foreclosure sale occurred; wrongful foreclosure claim cannot stand. | Plaintiff's wrongful foreclosure claim fails as a matter of law. |
| Fraud claims (misrepresentation and suppression) elements | SunTrust made forbearance promises and concealed foreclosure actions to induce reliance. | No false representations; no duty to disclose; suppression claim fails. | Both misrepresentation and suppression claims fail; no actionable fraud. |
| Breach of contract (forbearance agreements) viability | Defendant breached written/verbal forbearances by reporting delinquency during forbearance and initiating foreclosure. | No breach during effective forbearance periods; December 2010 period lacked an active forbearance. | Breach of contract claim fails; no breach during the contract terms established. |
| Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing | SunTrust acted in bad faith in handling forbearances and foreclosure. | No applicable insurance-like implied covenant; not cognizable here. | Claim fails as a matter of law. |
| Negligence/wantonness against mortgage servicing | Servicer duties give rise to tort claims (negligent/wanton management). | Alabama law does not recognize tort claims for negligent mortgage servicing; duties arise from contract. | Counts Six–Eight fail; no actionable tort duty or breach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reeves Cedarhurst Dev. Corp. v. First Am. Fed. Sav. and Loan, 607 So.2d 180 (Ala. 1992) (wrongful foreclosure requires actual sale; mere scheduling insufficient)
- Folmar v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 856 So.2d 807 (Ala. 2003) (malice and publication standards for slander of title)
- Roden v. Wright, 646 So.2d 605 (Ala. 1994) (malice and publication elements for slander of title)
- Thomas v. BSE Indus. Contractors, Inc., 624 So.2d 1041 (Ala. 1993) (outrage standard; narrow application of extreme conduct)
- Barber v. Bus. Prods. Ctr., Inc., 677 So.2d 223 (Ala. 1996) (contract-based tort limitations; tort duties not extending beyond insurance realm)