Igou v. Bank of America, N.A.
634 F. App'x 208
10th Cir.2015Background
- Darrell and Connie Igou refinanced a Littleton, Colorado house; after default and threatened foreclosure, they sent a notice purporting to rescind a 2009 loan under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).
- They sued Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) alleging unspecified, untimely, and incomplete TILA disclosures and sought declaratory judgment that the mortgage was rescinded and an injunction halting foreclosure.
- The complaint pleaded only general allegations that the creditor failed to provide many required disclosures and did not attach loan documents or identify which TILA provisions were violated.
- District court granted BANA’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, concluding the complaint lacked supporting documents, failed to allege BANA’s connection to the transaction, and did not plead TILA violations with the required factual specificity; an initial nonfinal order was followed by final judgment and denial of a Rule 59(e) motion.
- On appeal the court considered only the May 29, 2013 order (the Igous’ notice of appeal referenced that order) and reviewed the dismissal de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over appeals | The Igous treated their premature notice of appeal as sufficient to challenge the district court orders after judgment entered | BANA argued limited appellate jurisdiction and other defenses (e.g., standing) | Court: Notice ripened upon entry of judgment but only referenced the May 29 order, so appellate jurisdiction extends only to that order |
| Sufficiency of pleadings for declaratory relief/rescission under TILA | Igou asserted complaint sufficiently alleged rescission and TILA violations to obtain declaratory relief and stop foreclosure | BANA contended pleading was conclusory, lacking documents and factual specifics about which disclosures were missing or untimely | Court: Complaint failed Rule 8(a) and Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standards; dismissal proper |
| Sufficiency of pleadings for injunctive relief based on TILA violation | Igou argued allegations put BANA on notice of the TILA claim supporting injunctive relief | BANA argued facts were too vague to show a plausible TILA violation or entitlement to injunctive relief | Court: Vague allegations that disclosures were "many" or "untimely" insufficient; claim dismissed |
| Leave to amend / procedural sufficiency of amendment request | Igous sought reconsideration or leave to amend (informally) after dismissal | BANA relied on formal rule requirements and said plaintiffs did not comply with Rule 15 or local rules | Court: District court’s denial of leave to amend (treated post-judgment) not reviewed here because appeal limited to May 29 order |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Khalik v. United Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir.) (labels and conclusions insufficient; need factual specificity)
- SEC v. Shields, 744 F.3d 633 (10th Cir.) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Coll v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 642 F.3d 876 (10th Cir.) (timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional)
- Rumsfeld v. FAIR, 547 U.S. 47 (standing of one party can suffice when parties assert identical claims)
- Nolan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 973 F.2d 843 (10th Cir.) (Rule 3 appeal-designation requirements must be satisfied)