James Bryson Graham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
16-17615
| 11th Cir. | Oct 23, 2017Background
- In the late 1990s Graham signed promissory notes with SouthTrust Bank (predecessor to Wells Fargo) and later defaulted on one note. SouthTrust offset the debt using funds from Graham’s money market account in 2000.
- Graham repeatedly sued over the years alleging fraud, conversion, due process violations, and demanding return of original loan documents; those actions were dismissed.
- In May 2016 Graham sent Wells Fargo a letter purporting to rescind the original promissory notes and demanded return of his “paid-in-full original, unaltered and verified debt instruments.”
- In June 2016 Graham filed a TILA-based suit in federal district court seeking return of original loan documents and damages; the magistrate judge recommended dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim and as time-barred.
- The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed Graham’s complaint. Graham appealed pro se to the Eleventh Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of TILA rescission/damages claim | Graham argued he validly exercised rescission in 2016 and no statute of limitations should bar his claim | Wells Fargo argued the one-year damages and three-year rescission limitations under TILA had long expired (transactions in late 1990s/2000) | Dismissal affirmed: TILA limitations apply; rescission must be exercised within three years and damages within one year, so claim is time-barred |
| Requirement to return original note under TILA | Graham claimed TILA or related law required Wells Fargo to return original loan instruments | Wells Fargo argued TILA does not require return of original notes and limitations bar relief | Held: TILA does not obligate return of original note; claim untimely and fails to state a TILA claim |
| GAAP-based claim | Graham asserted GAAP violations as a basis for relief | Wells Fargo contended GAAP has no independent legal force to create a private cause of action | Held: GAAP principles alone do not create enforceable legal rights; dismissal proper |
| Due Process claim against private parties | Graham asserted Due Process violations | Wells Fargo argued the Due Process Clause constrains government actors, not private defendants | Held: Private parties cannot be sued under the Due Process Clause; such claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Beach v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, 523 U.S. 410 (1998) (describing TILA disclosure requirements and remedies)
- Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 574 U.S. 259 (2015) (recognizing TILA rescission right must be exercised within three years)
- Am. Dental Ass’n v. Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals)
- Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2008) (pro se complaints are construed liberally)
- Ziemba v. Cascade Int’l, Inc., 256 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2001) (professional accounting principles do not by themselves create legal rights)
- Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (1974) (Due Process Clause applies to governmental action, not private conduct)
- Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (issues raised for first time on appeal are waived)