Grant v. Shapiro & Burson, LLP
2012 WL 1632867
D. Maryland2012Background
- Plaintiff refinanced her Bladensburg, Maryland home in Sept. 2007 with a $342,000 Wells Fargo loan secured by a deed of trust; the trustee was John Burson of Shapiro & Burson.
- Plaintiff alleges improper disclosures at closing, including itemized charges, Good Faith Estimate, kickbacks/affiliated business arrangements, and lack of Special Information Booklet.
- Servicing of the refinanced loan allegedly transferred without notifying Plaintiff within 15 days.
- Foreclosure proceeded in Prince George’s County; sale occurred Oct. 18, 2010 after a last-minute cancellation of an August 2010 sale.
- Plaintiff filed this pro se action on June 23, 2011, asserting eleven counts including RESPA, RICO, and TILA violations, among others; Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Court grants dismissal of federal RESPA, TILA, and RICO claims, with leave to amend RESPA claim under § 2605(b)(1) and defers state-law claims pending amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RESPA private right of action covers claimed disclosures | Plaintiff asserts RESPA violations for disclosure failures. | Defendants contend only § 2605 and § 2607 claims are actionable; others not private actions. | RESPA private rights limited to specific sections; some alleged disclosures are not actionable. |
| Whether § 2605(b)(1) claim of post-closing servicing transfer can survive | Plaintiff claims failure to notify about servicing transfer amounts to § 2605(b)(1). | Claims lack specific facts on servicer, transfer timing, involved entities, and damages. | Plaintiff’s claim insufficiently pled; granted leave to amend within 14 days. |
| Whether TILA claims are time-barred | TILA disclosures related to refinancing should be actionable. | TILA claims time-barred; four-year window not satisfied. | TILA claims are time-barred and must be dismissed. |
| Whether RICO claim is sufficiently pled | Plaintiff asserts a mortgage-lending enterprise with pattern of racketeering. | Insufficient enterprise, pattern, or predicate acts; fraud allegations lack specificity. | RICO claim dismissed for lack of enterprise and pattern; no continuing scheme proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (Supreme Court 1985) (establishes pattern requirement for RICO)
- Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776 (4th Cir. 1999) (liberally construes pro se complaints)
- Chisolm v. TranSouth Fin. Corp., 95 F.3d 331 (4th Cir. 1996) (fraud elements and pleading standards for mail/wire)
- Menasco, Inc. v. Wasserman, 886 F.2d 681 (4th Cir. 1989) (requirement of pattern and continuity in RICO claims)
- Al-Abood ex rel. Al-Abood v. El-Shamari, 217 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2000) (RICO enterprise and pattern pleading standards)