Costine v. BAC Home Loans
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71647
N.D. Ala.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Costine and others sued Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) in 2012, which was severed into five cases and repleaded in 2013 with individualized claims.
- Plaintiffs allege BANA improperly serviced their loan, mishandled modification attempts, and charged unwarranted fees after default.
- Plaintiffs claim breach of contract, slander of title, unjust enrichment, FDCPA, RESPA, negligence theories, breach of fiduciary duty, and IIED.
- Court applies Rule 12(b)(6) and Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards to evaluate sufficiency of pleadings.
- BANA is the successor to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP; the court partially grants, partially denies, and partially defers ruling to allow amendments.
- Plaintiffs seek to amend only the specific claims identified as still viable after the court’s ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract sufficiency | Costine argues contract existed and funds were misapplied | BANA contends claim insufficiently pled | Count One survives 12(b)(6) as pled |
| Slander of title sufficiency | Plaintiffs allege third-party publication and damages | Allegations lack detail | Count Two survives 12(b)(6) pleadings |
| FDCPA viability and amendment | BANA is a debt collector under FDCPA | BANA not a debt collector since debt not in default when acquired | FDCPA claim dismissed but amendment allowed within 10 days to plead facts showing debt collector status |
| RESPA pleading sufficiency and amendment | QWR submitted; RESPA duties triggered | No factual allegation of a QWR in complaint | RESPA claim dismissed but amendment allowed within 10 days to plead actual QWR submission |
| Cognizability of remaining tort claims | Negligence-based theories arise from servicing duties | Alabama law does not recognize negligent mortgage servicing; fiduciary duty and outrage claims lack support | Counts Six, Seven, Eight, and Nine dismissed (with potential amendment for cognizable theories where applicable) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard; complaints must plead enough facts to raise relief above the speculative level)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (two-pronged approach: strip legal conclusions; test well-pleaded facts for plausibility)
- Blake v. Bank of Am., N.A., 845 F.Supp.2d 1206 (M.D. Ala. 2012) (Alabama tort servicing claims not cognizable; duties arise from contract)