Davis v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
2:10-cv-12136
E.D. Mich.Mar 11, 2011Background
- This is an Eastern District of Michigan case where Trina Davis sues CitiMortgage, Inc. on behalf of a class alleging ECOA notice violations in denying a HAMP-modification request.
- Davis applied for a mortgage modification under HAMP in July 2009 and certified hardship, resulting in a September 2009 trial plan with reduced payments.
- Davis paid all Trial Plan payments on time, but in April 2010 CitiMortgage demanded a lump-sum payment of $10,152.22 to avoid foreclosure and denied the modification.
- Davis alleges CitiMortgage violated ECOA by failing to provide written notice of the denial.
- CitiMortgage moves to dismiss the complaint; the court analyzes under Rule 12(b)(6) and ultimately grants dismissal, finding no ECOA notice obligation given the facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does ECOA require written notice for denial in HAMP context when delinquent? | Davis contends notice is required for denial. | Delinquency at denial exempts notice under ECOA. | ECOA notice not required; denial does not state a claim. |
| Was Davis delinquent on the underlying loan at the time of denial for ECOA purposes? | Plaintiff asserts she was current on the loan via the Trial Plan. | Trial Plan does not modify the loan; she was in default when denied. | Default status established; ECOA non-notice applies and claim fails. |
| Does the complaint adequately state an ECOA claim for relief? | Plaintiff relies on failure to provide notice for denial. | No adequate factual basis showing ECOA discrimination or notice obligation. | Plaintiff fails to state a cognizable ECOA claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fischl v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 708 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1983) (ECOA notice requirements originate from 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691(d)(2)-(3))
- Lewis v. ACB Bus. Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 1998) (default timing determines ADA/notice considerations)
- Haynes v. Bank of Wedowee, 634 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1981) (default status affects action as adverse action)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (claims must be plausibly pled rather thanly speculative)
- Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (plausibility standard applies to pleadings)