Kemp v. Eiland
139 F. Supp. 3d 329
D.D.C.2015Background
- Plaintiff Ethel Kemp (now in her 80s) alleges Defendant Derrick Eiland induced her and her late husband (in 2001) to sign a Declaration of Trust and a Warranty Deed that purportedly transferred their home into the “1637 V St. Land Trust,” with the documents omitting a definite beneficiary and recorded years later.
- In 2007 Eiland executed a deed purporting to transfer the Property from the Trust to himself as “Substitute Trustee,” then obtained a $300,000 mortgage from World Savings Bank (later Wachovia/Wells Fargo).
- Kemp alleges Eiland told the Kemps he would save their home, instead stripped equity, collected payments (approximately $135,000), and later threatened eviction in 2014.
- Kemp sued in D.C. Superior Court (2014) seeking quiet title, breach of fiduciary duty, injunctive relief, unjust enrichment, and slander of title; Bank Defendants removed to federal court based on diversity.
- Defendants moved to dismiss; Eiland also moved for summary judgment pre-discovery. The court denied pre-discovery summary judgment as premature, denied most dismissal grounds, dismissed only the standalone injunctive-relief count, and denied laches and statute-of-limitations dismissal at this stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of 2001 Trust/2001 Deed (quiet title) | The Declaration of Trust is facially deficient (no definite beneficiary, signatures above a blank “__% Beneficiary” line) so the conveyances can be voided and title quieted in Kemp. | The trust is ascertainable/followed trust formalities; any defect does not vest title back in grantor and transferee takes title free of trust. | Court: Kemp plausibly alleged a facially deficient trust and denied dismissal as to quiet title; factual development required. |
| Validity of 2007 conveyances / substitute trustee authority | 2007 Deed is void because Eiland lacked actual/apparent authority, and Banks had notice or inquiry notice of defects. | The 2001 documents authorize or otherwise validate the 2007 transactions; Kemp lacks standing if 2001 documents were valid. | Court: Denied dismissal—validity depends on resolution of the 2001 trust issues and facts. |
| Breach of fiduciary duty (against Eiland) | If the trust made the Kemps beneficiaries (signatures above beneficiary line), Eiland as trustee/substitute trustee owed fiduciary duties and breached them by self-dealing. | The Declaration does not identify Kemp as beneficiary, so no fiduciary duty arose. | Court: Denied dismissal—existence of fiduciary duty is fact-intensive and plausible here. |
| Fraud / Unjust enrichment / Rule 9(b) sufficiency | Eiland promised to save the home, induced signing, took title and payments; this pleads common law fraud and supports unjust enrichment; allegations meet Rule 9(b). | Allegations are conclusory and must plead intent not to perform; heightened particularity lacking. | Court: Denied dismissal—fraud and unjust enrichment sufficiently pleaded; complaint meets Rule 9(b) in context. |
| Slander of title (against Eiland and Banks) | Recording and use of defective documents falsely and maliciously clouded title, causing pecuniary loss (lost equity, inability to convey). | Filing recorded instruments in good faith is privileged; absent knowledge/reckless disregard, slander claim fails. | Court: Denied dismissal—malice/good-faith and damages are factual issues; pleading adequate to survive. |
| Statute of limitations / Laches | Kemp waited many years; claims are time-barred and laches prejudiced defendants (Banks relied on the instruments). | Kemp asserts discovery rule/equitable tolling—did not (and could not) discover fraud until eviction threat in 2014. | Court: Denied dismissal—discovery rule plausibly applies; laches is fact-intensive and not shown on face of complaint. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must plead facts raising claim above speculative level)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standards and burden-shifting)
- Convertino v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 684 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (summary judgment premature without full opportunity for discovery)
- Hughes v. Abell, 867 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. 2012) (district court granted summary judgment where written documents unambiguously controlled)
- Jessup v. Progressive Funding, 35 F. Supp. 3d 25 (D.D.C. 2014) (quiet-title pleading requirements and failure to allege superior title)
- Lancaster v. Fox, 72 F. Supp. 3d 319 (D.D.C. 2014) (fraud allegations can support quiet-title relief)