Enriquez v. Countrywide Home Loans, FSB
814 F. Supp. 2d 1042
D. Haw.2011Background
- Plaintiff Enriquez alleges predatory lending practices by Countrywide and Trinity in originating a 30-year mortgage on her Keaau, HI home.
- Defendants allegedly provided a stated-income loan with a 15-year amortization and 15-year interest-only period, with a higher payment than anticipated.
- Plaintiff claims missing initial disclosures, misrepresentations, undisclosed appraisals, and improper loan-to-value aspects, plus securitization/transfer issues affecting enforceability.
- Plaintiff asserts the loan was not properly qualified or disclosed, and urges that defendants failed to engage in good-faith modification discussions despite distress.
- Plaintiff asserts multiple federal and Hawaii law claims (HOEPA, TILA, RESPA, FCRA, ECOA, CROA, GLBA, NIED/IIED, UDAP, etc.) and seeks rescission, damages, and other relief.
- The court granted in part and denied in part Countrywide’s motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement, and allowed leave to amend some claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| HOEPA/TILA timeliness and rescission viability | Enriquez contends tolling and timely filing; HOEPA applies due to high-cost loan | Countrywide argues time-barred claims and lack of HOEPA threshold disclosure | HOEPA damages/time-barred; HOEPA rescission dismissed without prejudice; TILA rescission claim viable with denial-reservation for tolling |
| RES P A and FCRA private rights and damages | RESPA and FCRA claims should survive for damages and disclosures | Defendant argues time-bar and lack of private right for certain duties | Count II DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; Count IV §1681s-2(b) DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; §1681s-2(a) DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE |
| GLBA private right and ECOA appraisal disclosure | GLBA and ECOA claims allege privacy and appraisal disclosure violations | No private right of action under GLBA; ECOA claim lacks timely written request for appraisal | Count XVI DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; Count XVIII appraisal portion DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (appraisal); loan-application portion DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE |
| RICO/conspiracy and fraud-based claims | Plaintiff contends enterprise/conspiracy and fraud statements after discovery | Pleading fails to allege plausible RICO/conspiracy elements or fraud specifics | Count VIII DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; Count VII DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; Count V DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; Counts IX, X, XI, XII LIMITED (without prejudice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must show plausible claim, not mere conclusory allegations)
- Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (limits bare legal conclusions; guides plausibility standard)
- King v. California, 784 F.2d 910 (9th Cir. 1986) (equitable tolling for TILA recognized in certain circumstances)
- Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2010) (fraud pleading requires time/place/content; party must identify role of each defendant)
- Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2009) (private FCRA claims require agency notification and investigations; private action limited to 1681s-2(b))