Daniel Logan v. LaSalle Bank National Association
2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 793
| D.C. | 2013Background
- Logan obtained an $84,750 loan secured by a deed of trust on 5704 Georgia Ave NW, D.C., dated April 23, 1990.
- LaSalle Bank and Ocwen claim Logan was delinquent by 2005 and in default by 2007; Logan contends he was not in default or that the debt was misstated.
- Foreclosure sale held July 29, 2009, after lift of an automatic stay; Bank of America (successor to LaSalle) purchased the property.
- Ocwen initiated a separate possessory action resulting in Logan's eviction in March 2011.
- Logan’s November 30, 2010 amended complaint asserted federal and D.C. claims alleging improper charges, misstatements, and lack of standing to foreclose; trial court dismissed all eleven counts.
- On appeal, the court reverses on Counts One, Two, and Ten and remands for further proceedings; other counts remain dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TILA claim is time-barred | Logan argues timely within discovery/injury window. | TILA claim arose from 1990 loan; outside 1-year statute. | TILA claim time-barred; affirmed dismissal. |
| Whether FDCPA claim states a debt-collector | LaSalle/Ocwen acted as debt collector. | No sufficient facts showing debt-collector status; entity not after-default acquisition. | FDCPA claim dismissed for lack of debt-collector status. |
| Whether FCRA claim is viable | Disputes not properly reported; Ocwen failed to investigate. | No consumer reporting agency notified of dispute as required. | FCRA claim dismissed. |
| Whether RESPA claim supports damages and pattern of violations | Ocwen failed to respond to QWRs and misreported debts. | Damages not pled with particularity; no pattern shown. | RESPA claim dismissed for failure to plead damages and pattern. |
| Whether RICO claims are viable | Alleges predicate offenses and pattern of racketeering. | Insufficient facts; conclusory pleadings. | RICO claims dismissed for failure to state a claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (heightened pleading standard)
- Grayson v. AT&T Corp., 15 A.3d 219 (D.C. 2011) (en banc; pleading sufficiency guidance)
- Maupin v. Haylock, 931 A.2d 1039 (D.C. 2007) (summary judgment pleading requirements)
- Medhin v. Hailu, 26 A.3d 307 (D.C. 2011) (statute-of-limitations inquiry timing)
- Brin v. S.E.W. Investors, 902 A.2d 784 (D.C. 2006) (limitations on pleading and timely claims)
- Tsintolas Realty Co. v. Mendez, 984 A.2d 181 (D.C. 2009) (breach of contract elements)
- Oparaugo v. Watts, 884 A.2d 63 (D.C. 2005) (statutory pleading standards)