DENNIS T. COMER v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
108 A.3d 364
| D.C. | 2015Background
- Comer obtained a HUD-insured 203(k) rehabilitation mortgage from Wells Fargo in June 2008; he later defaulted and the lender foreclosed in January 2010.
- Comer sued in Superior Court in June 2011 and filed an amended complaint in December 2011 adding allegations that Wells Fargo engaged in racially discriminatory, predatory lending (reverse redlining) affecting African Americans.
- Original complaint alleged negligent handling and misrepresentations by Wells Fargo and its loan specialist (Roche), CPPA violations, and a wrongful foreclosure claim based on an allegedly incorrect balance in the foreclosure notice.
- Amended complaint preserved prior counts, amplified facts alleging a pattern/practice of discrimination, and added an explicit Fair Housing Act (FHA) claim.
- Wells Fargo moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting the amended CPPA, negligent misrepresentation, and FHA claims were time-barred because they did not “relate back” to the original complaint; trial court dismissed those claims and dismissed wrongful foreclosure for lack of alleged harm.
- The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the FHA and wrongful-foreclosure counts, but held the amended CPPA and negligent misrepresentation claims do relate back and remanded those claims for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended CPPA claim relates back to original pleading under Rule 15(c)(2) | Comer: amended CPPA amplifies original misrepresentation/unfair-practice allegations arising from same 203(k) loan and thus relates back | Wells Fargo: amended racial-discrimination allegations are new facts/theory and time-barred (statute ran from loan closing June 2008) | Related back — CPPA claim survives; remanded |
| Whether amended negligent misrepresentation claim relates back | Comer: negligent-misrepresentation identical to original count and merely incorporates new facts by reference | Wells Fargo: new discrimination facts change nature and are untimely | Related back — negligent-misrepresentation survives; remanded |
| Whether newly pled FHA claim relates back | Comer: FHA arises from same lending conduct and should relate back | Wells Fargo: FHA is a new cause of action/ legal theory not pled in original complaint and is time-barred | Not related back — FHA dismissal affirmed |
| Whether wrongful foreclosure claim was sufficiently pleaded | Comer: foreclosure notice overstated balance by failing to deduct unused escrow/contingency, making foreclosure wrongful | Wells Fargo: escrow funds were borrower’s to apply; alleged notice error is technical and Comer showed no actual harm | Dismissal affirmed — plaintiff failed to plead inaccurate balance tied to loan terms or any prejudice/harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Wagner v. Georgetown Univ. Med. Ctr., 768 A.2d 546 (D.C. 2001) (amendment may relate back when factual situation remains same and was put in defendant’s notice)
- Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. District of Columbia, 441 A.2d 969 (D.C. 1982) (original pleading must place defendant on notice of range of matters in controversy)
- Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644 (U.S. 2005) (relation-back does not apply where amendment asserts new ground supported by facts differing in time and type)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard: plausible claim requires more than conclusory allegations)
- Rose v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 73 A.3d 1047 (D.C. 2013) (nonmaterial notice defects do not invalidate foreclosure; materiality depends on risk of misleading owner)
- Bank-Fund Staff Fed. Credit Union v. Cuellar, 639 A.2d 561 (D.C. 1994) (foreclosure notice must include accurate cure amount; failure can invalidate sale)