Judith CARTER, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Et Al., Defendants
888 F. Supp. 2d 1
D.D.C.2012Background
- Carter filed a 21-count Amended Complaint in the D.C. Superior Court against Bank of America, MERS, and Freedom Mortgage alleging violations related to a 2004 refinance, a denied loan modification, and foreclosure proceedings.
- Defendants removed to federal court, asserting four federal claims under TILA, RESPA, RICO, and HOEPA; Freedom Mortgage moved to dismiss on statute of limitations and Rule 12(b)(6) grounds.
- The loan was a 2004 30-year fixed-rate mortgage for $318,500 issued by Freedom Mortgage; servicing rights later transferred to Bank of America.
- Carter alleged a series of defects in origination, underwriting, fees, and purported predatory lending, including alleged lack of income verification and excessive closing costs.
- She asserted attempted or actual foreclosure and sought declaratory, injunctive, and various substantive relief theories, often lacking precise factual support tied to named defendants.
- The court conducted a Twombly/Iqbal-based screening and dismissed the Amended Complaint in its entirety for failure to plead plausible claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the claims against Freedom Mortgage are time-barred or fail to state a claim | Carter contends claims arise from conduct over time and should be timely. | Freedom Mortgage argues accrual in 2004 with at most a three-year limitations period; claims fail under Rule 12(b)(6). | Claims dismissed as not plausibly pled or timely under applicable limitations. |
| Whether the Amended Complaint satisfies Rule 8 and states plausible claims against all defendants | Alleges multiple statutory and common-law violations and wrongful foreclosure. | Complaint is incoherent, overbroad, and lacks necessary factual specifics to state claims. | All counts dismissed for lack of plausibility and insufficient factual pleading. |
| Whether declaratory or injunctive relief claims regarding foreclosure survive | Requests declaration that foreclosure was improper and seeks to enjoin non-judicial sale. | No foreclosure proceedings or standing adequately alleged; regulation/standing issues unresolved. | Claims fail for lack of pleaded facts showing foreclosure occurred or that relief is warranted. |
| Whether the TILA, RESPA, UDAP, gross negligence, and related claims survive | Alleges multiple federal and state violations with misrepresentations and improper disclosures. | Counts are vague, fail to identify specific disclosures or statutes, and are time-barred where applicable; no private rights cited. | Counts dismissed; specificity and timeliness deficiencies defeat claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must show plausible grounds for relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (naked assertions insufficient; require factual enhancement)
- Murray v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 953 A.2d 308 (D.C. 2008) (DC foreclosure principles and accrual considerations)
- Leake v. Prensky, 798 F. Supp. 2d 254 (D.D.C. 2011) (non-judicial foreclosure framework under DC law)
- Howard Univ. v. Watkins, 2012 WL 1454487 (D.D.C. 2012) (fraud pleading standards in DC context (cited for standard, not WL as authority))
- Findlay v. Citimortgage, Inc., 813 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D.D.C. 2011) (consumer-protection statute interpretation and remedies)
- Busby v. Capital One, N.A., 772 F. Supp. 2d 268 (D.D.C. 2011) (elements of common-law fraud under DC law)
- Richards v. Option One Mortg. Corp., 682 F. Supp. 2d 40 (D.D.C. 2010) (duty of good faith and contract performance in DC)