Derisme v. Hunt Leibert Jacobson P.C.
880 F. Supp. 2d 339
D. Conn.2012Background
- Plaintiff Fabiola Is Ra El Bey, proceeding pro se, sues Hunt Leibert Jacobson, PC and partners asserting FDCPA and CUTPA violations in connection with Connecticut foreclosure actions.
- Disposed matters concern 2008 initial foreclosure and 2009/2010 foreclosures, including lis pendens and debt-validation communications.
- EMC Mortgage (servicer for LaSalle/ Bank of America successor) notified Plaintiff of foreclosure and referred case to Hunt Leibert; January 2008 notices preceded 2008 foreclosure filing.
- Plaintiff challenged debt validity, sent multiple dispute letters, and sought validation; defendants responded with validation and payoff information.
- Court granted summary judgment for Defendants, finding FDCPA claims largely inapplicable because foreclosure actions enforce security interests, not debts, under Connecticut law.
- Plaintiff attempted to add new FDCPA/CUTPA theories late in litigation; court limited amendments and denied new allegations on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDCPA applicability to foreclosure | Hunt Leibert violated FDCPA by debt collection in 2008/2009/2010. | Foreclosure actions enforce security interests; FDCPA limits apply only to debt collection (except 1692f(6)); many claims improper. | FDCPA sections g/e do not apply to Connecticut foreclosure actions; summary judgment for Defendants on these claims. |
| Statute of limitations and tolling for 2008 claim | Equitable tolling preserves 2008 FDCPA claim. | No adequate tolling; delay not rare/exceptional; no due diligence showed. | 2008 FDCPA claim barred by statute of limitations; equitable tolling not established. |
| Relation back of 2009/2010 claims | Amendments relate back to original complaint; FDCPA claims timely. | New facts; relation back to original pleading appropriate; claims fall within FDCPA limitations. | 2009 and 2010 FDCPA claims relate back and are not time-barred. |
| Whether defendants are liable under FDCPA as individual defendants | Individual partners liable for FDCPA violations. | No evidence of personal involvement; no individual liability. | Individual liability not established; no personal involvement found. |
| CUTPA claim viability | FDCPA violation equates to CUTPA violation. | No FDCPA violation proven; CUTPA claim fails; protections under Connecticut law apply. | CUTPA claim fails as FDCPA violation not proven; no independent CUTPA showing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mortgage Electronic Registration Sys., Inc. v. White, 278 Conn. 219 (2006) (foreclosure as security interest; title theory limits FDCPA reach)
- Town of Groton v. Mardie Lane Homes, LLC, 286 Conn. 280 (2008) (foreclosure as equitable, not money judgment; title/ownership concepts)
- City of New Haven v. God's Corner Church, Inc., 108 Conn. App. 134 (2008) (foreclosure context and equity principles; redemption concepts)
- Linden Condominium, Assn., Inc. v. McKenna, 247 Conn. 575 (1999) (foreclosure mechanics; deficiency judgments and timing)
- Gagne v. Vaccaro, 80 Conn. App. 436 (2003) (fundamental distinctions between legal debt collection and foreclosure actions)
- F.D.I.C. v. Hillcrest Assocs., 233 Conn. 153 (1995) (deficiency judgment timing; statutory procedures in foreclosures)