Findlay v. Citimortgage, Inc.
813 F. Supp. 2d 108
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiff Veronica Findlay sues CitiMortgage and related entities in the District of Columbia alleging TILA, RESPA, CPPA, and common-law claims from an October 2007 refinancing.
- Plaintiff refinanced with Indymac in 2007, receiving a cash payoff and later alleging the loan terms were misrepresented and improper disclosures were made.
- Plaintiff defaulted in 2010, CitiMortgage foreclosed, and servicing was later transferred to Acqura; she sent a rescission notice on October 4, 2010.
- Complaint asserts ten counts, including CPPA violations, negligence, TILA damages, RESPA, civil conspiracy, and joint venture theories.
- Defendant removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), challenging multiple claims on limitations, pleading sufficiency, and legal theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| TILA damages claim: is it time-barred? | Findlay seeks recoupment to avoid period. | Damages claim barred after 1 year from settlement. | Damages claim time-barred; dismissed with prejudice. |
| TILA rescission: must plead ability to tender? | No tender requirement to plead rescission. | Tender ability may be required; pleading not necessary at this stage. | Rescission claim survives; no pleading of tender required at this stage (may be addressed later). |
| RESPA claim: is it time-barred? | Defendant’s assertion of recoupment defense; defensive recourse. | RESPA claims have 1-year limit from closing. | RESPA claim time-barred; dismissed with prejudice. |
| CPPA unconscionability claims (Counts II & III): are they sufficient? | Allegations show unconscionable terms and takings under CPPA. | Allegations are conclusory and improperly plead CPPA violations. | Counts II and III survive; CPPA claims adequately pleaded. |
| Negligence, civil conspiracy, and joint venture viability | Negligence and conspiratorial theories viable with CPPA facts. | No duty shown; CPPA doesn't support common-law conspiracy; joint venture not recognized here. | Negligence dismissed without prejudice; civil conspiracy and joint venture dismissed without prejudice. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Nat'l Permanent Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 683 F.2d 444 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (rescission equitable considerations; tender not required upfront)
- Williams v. First Gov't Mort. & Invest. Corp., 225 F.3d 738 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (CPPA unconscionability factors applied to loan transactions)
- High v. McLean Fin. Corp., 659 F. Supp. 2d 1561 (D.D.C. 1987) (lender assurances impact duty of care in processing loans)
- Freese v. Empire Fin. Servs., 725 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D.D.C. 2010) (court may condition rescission on ability to tender; feasible at summary judgment stage)