Collins v. BAC Home Loans Servicing LP
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176026
D. Colo.2012Background
- Collins, pro se, sues Bank of America related to negative credit reports tied to Countrywide foreclosures on two 2005 investment properties.
- Loans were financed by Countrywide; Collins defaulted, leading to foreclosures and a 2008 state court/federal litigation that was dismissed/adopted in 2009.
- In 2011 Collins filed suit in Colorado state court (removed to federal court) alleging eight claims against BA, including FCRA, UCCC, CCPA, negligence, privacy invasion, and emotional distress.
- BA moved for summary judgment (ECF No. 13); Collins sought leave to amend his response (ECF No. 48), which magistrate judge Tafoya recommended denying.
- District judge Daniel affirmed and adopted Tafoya’s recommendation, granting summary judgment and dismissing all claims with prejudice.
- The analysis focused on FCRA preemption of state law claims, the reasonableness of BA’s investigations, and res judicata/preemption effects on related common law and statutory claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FCRA liability for willful and negligent reporting | Collins argues BA had a duty to report debt as disputed. | BA acted within FCRA §1681s-2(a)-(b) and conducted reasonable investigations. | BA's summary judgment granted; FCRA preemption and reasonableness defeat Collins's claims. |
| Preemption of state UCCC claims by FCRA | Collins claims UCCC violations based on failure to report as disputed. | FCRA §1681t(b)(1)(F) preempts state UCCC claims. | Claims three and five dismissed as preempted. |
| Common law negligence and invasion of privacy preemption and res judicata | Claims survive state-law theories unrelated to CRA reporting. | FCRA preempts; res judicata bars claims tied to 2005 loan litigation. | Claims four and seven dismissed; res judicata and preemption apply. |
| CCPA claim based on reporting | BA violated Colorado CCPA by not reporting disputed debt. | Preempted by FCRA and barred by res judicata. | Claim six dismissed as preempted and barred. |
| Infliction of emotional distress viability | BA’s reporting and collection efforts caused distress. | No malice/willful intent proven; res judicata imposes bar. | Claim eight dismissed; preemption and res judicata apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) (dispute-notification and private rights under 1681s-2(a) vs (b))
- Saunders v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. of VA, 526 F.3d 142 (4th Cir. 2008) (private right under 1681s-2(b) when disputes are processed via CRA)
- Sanders v. Mountain America Federal Credit Union, 689 F.3d 1138 (10th Cir. 2012) (limits private action to disputes with CRAs vs furnisher duties)
- Hartsel Springs Ranch of Colo., Inc. v. Bluegreen, 296 F.3d 982 (10th Cir. 2002) (privity and preemption considerations in related actions)
- Culpepper v. Pearl St. Bldg., Inc., 877 P.2d 877 (Colo. 1994) (elements for intentional infliction of emotional distress)