Dalton v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
828 F. Supp. 2d 1242
D. Colo.2011Background
- Plaintiff purchased real property in Evergreen, CO on June 29, 2007 to serve as her primary residence and obtained two loans (June Loans).
- September Construction Loan and September LOC refinanced the June Loans to finance construction; disbursements were subject to completion milestones and cost caps.
- Countrywide began disbursements under the September Construction Loan on September 14, 2007; work was not completed by March 10, 2009 and costs exceeded approved amounts.
- By mid-2008, disbursement pace outstripped construction progress; Countrywide halted further disbursements and plaintiff used her own funds for some costs.
- Plaintiff sold the property in April 2009 via a short sale for $850,000; proceeds were paid to the lenders and the September Loans remained with a large deficiency; plaintiff alleges lenders misrepresented disbursement plans and contributed to refinancing denial.
- The court applies federal law to federal claims and Colorado law to state-law claims, ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations for TILA/HOEPA claims | Equitable tolling or three-year rescission period | One-year statute applies; tolling not proven; §1635(f) does not apply | TILA/HOEPA claims time-barred; no tolling or §1635 applicability |
| Private right of action under RESPA §§ 2603-2604 | RESPS-private action exists despite lack of express language | No private right of action for §§2603-2604 | RESPS claims dismissed; no private right of action recognized |
| Standing to pursue CCPA claim | Defendants' conduct harmed plaintiff and impacted public; sufficiency | No consumer impact; insufficient for public-impact element | CCPA claim fails; no standing to pursue under CCPA |
| Colorado credit agreement statute of frauds (C.R.S. 38-10-124) precludes oral claims | Oral representations relate to non-writing disbursements not within statute | Oral statements tied to September Loans fall within credit agreement; must be written | Oral-based fraudulent misrepresentation/promissory estoppel etc. barred; written representations survive; fiduciary claim barred entirely |
| Defamation preemption under FCRA and malice requirement | FCRA preempts state defamation claims; malice shown | Preemption; no malice shown for most statements | Defamation not wholly preempted; limited preemption; some claims survive if based on malice/false reporting |
Key Cases Cited
- Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (equitable tolling requires rare and exceptional circumstances)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burden shift)