Diana Williams v. Citimortgage Inc.
498 F. App'x 532
6th Cir.2012Background
- Diana Williams filed a putative class action against CitiMortgage alleging a pattern of overstating payoff amounts and charging an improper $50 fax/statement fee.
- Payoff Statement dated July 31, 2006 listed principal, interest, recording and a $50 fax/statement fee, with per diem interest and a payment-good-through date.
- Williams refinanced July 31, 2006; CitiMortgage received $133,531.25 on August 7, 2006 and later refunded excess escrow and about $600 in interest.
- Plaintiff alleged six causes of action including unjust enrichment, breach of contract, fraud, and consumer protection/TILA violations.
- The district court dismissed the claims with prejudice and Williams appealed; the court reviews de novo a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and may consider attached exhibits.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the payoff statement contradicted the plaintiffs’ misrepresentation claims and that the $50 fee was disclosed as a separate servicing charge not tied to release of the mortgage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Payoff Statement was fraudulent or misleading as a matter of law | Williams argues the front of the statement misrepresented amounts due and that disclosures on the back do not mitigate. | CitiMortgage contends the Payoff Statement language and disclosures negate the alleged misrepresentation. | Yes; the payoff language contradicted the claim of fraud as a matter of law. |
| Whether the $50 fax/statement fee was improperly charged to release the mortgage | Williams asserts the fee was an impermissible cost tied to payoff. | The fee is disclosed as a separate servicing charge not secured by the mortgage and not required for release. | Yes; the fee was disclosed as a separate charge and not required to release the mortgage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Savoie v. Martin, 673 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2012) (de novo review on Rule 12(b)(6) and exhibit consideration)
- Bassett v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426 (6th Cir. 2008) (decision on use of attached exhibits and standard for pleading)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard; allegations must state plausible claim)
- Micrel, Inc. v. TRW, Inc., 486 F.3d 866 (6th Cir. 2007) (fraud claims not sustained where statements not fraudulent as a matter of law)
- N. Indiana Gun & Outdoor Shows, Inc. v. City of S. Bend, 163 F.3d 449 (7th Cir. 1998) (exhibits trump inconsistent pleadings when documents attached)