HAWKINS v. FEDERAL NATL. MORTGAGE ASSN.
2:13-cv-06068
E.D. Pa.Jan 23, 2014Background
- Hawkins owned a Pennsylvania home subject to foreclosure by Fannie Mae and servicer Seterus; property flooded in Feb 2011 and she vacated the premises while alleging she maintained possession.
- On Sept. 8, 2011 a lockbox barred Hawkins from entry; Seterus told her the property was believed vacant and Safeguard had been retained to winterize/secure it; a contractor (via a John Doe company) later told her someone would grant access.
- During late September 2011 Hawkins’ house was stripped of personal property, fixtures were damaged, and neighbors reported men claiming they were there to winterize the home.
- Hawkins sued Fannie Mae, Seterus, Safeguard, and a John Doe contractor in state court asserting UTPCPL (Count I), conversion (II), trespass (III), negligence (IV), negligent infliction of emotional distress (V), and punitive damages (VI); case removed to federal court.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the court addressed each claim and dismissed certain claims as to Fannie Mae, Seterus, and Safeguard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| UTPCPL (misleading/confusing lockbox) | Hawkins: defendants caused confusion and she suffered damages. | Defendants: plaintiff must plead justifiable reliance; she did not. | Dismissed as to Fannie Mae, Seterus, and Safeguard for failure to allege justifiable reliance. |
| Conversion (removal/theft of personal property) | Hawkins: contractors (John Doe) removed property; contractors were agents in chain (Safeguard→Seterus→Fannie Mae). | Defendants: they never took possession; plaintiff’s allegations are speculative. | Claim survives against Fannie Mae and Seterus — agency allegations sufficient at pleading stage. |
| Trespass (entry/securement) | Hawkins: entry was unprivileged because she did not abandon the property. | Fannie Mae/Seterus: mortgage permits securing abandoned property; entry privileged under mortgage. | Claim survives against Fannie Mae and Seterus — factual dispute over abandonment for later stages. |
| Negligence (vetting contractors; securing record owner) | Hawkins: defendants breached duties to vet subcontractors and determine ownership, causing damages. | Defendants: no causal connection pleaded between breaches and damages. | Claim survives against Fannie Mae and Seterus — plaintiff pleaded duty, breach, and causation facts sufficient to proceed. |
| Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) | Hawkins: emotional harm from defendants’ conduct and duties (fiduciary-like) while winterizing. | Defendants: absent physical injury, NIED requires preexisting relationship imposing implied duty to care for emotional well-being. | Dismissed as to Fannie Mae, Seterus, and Safeguard — no alleged relationship/duty meeting Toney standard. |
| Punitive Damages | Hawkins: defendants’ conduct (passing responsibility, trespass, damage/theft) was wanton/reckless. | Defendants: plaintiff did not plead defendants’ malicious or reckless state of mind. | Dismissed as to Fannie Mae, Seterus, and Safeguard — inadequate factual allegations on state of mind. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santiago v. Warminster Twp., 629 F.3d 121 (3d Cir.) (pleading plausibility standard principles)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (Iqbal/Twombly plausibility pleading standard)
- Victaulic Co. v. Tieman, 499 F.3d 227 (3d Cir.) (plausibility and non-speculative pleading)
- Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc., 578 Pa. 479 (UTPCPL requires justifiable reliance)
- Hunt v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 538 F.3d 217 (3d Cir.) (discussing UTPCPL reliance requirement)
- Shonberger v. Oswell, 530 A.2d 112 (Pa. Super. Ct.) (definition of conversion)
- Chuy v. Eagles Football Club, 595 F.2d 1265 (3d Cir.) (punitive damages standard discussion)
- Feld v. Merriam, 506 Pa. 383 (discussing punitive damages and requisite state of mind)