Kevin Schriener v. Quicken Loans, Inc.
774 F.3d 442
8th Cir.2014Background
- In June 2011 Schriener obtained a residential mortgage from Quicken Loans secured by a deed of trust; Quicken acquired the deed form from Wolters Kluwer and provided information to prepare it.
- The HUD-1 attached to the complaint showed Quicken’s origination and adjusted origination charges but did not list any separate fee for preparing the deed of trust.
- Schriener sued in state court (putative class action) alleging Quicken engaged in unauthorized law business (Mo. Rev. Stat. § 484.020), violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), and was unjustly enriched; Quicken removed the case to federal court.
- At oral argument Schriener’s counsel conceded Quicken did not charge Schriener a document-preparation fee and disavowed an earlier “upon information and belief” allegation that Quicken increased other fees to cover document preparation.
- The district court dismissed all claims with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend; Schriener appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether procuring/preparing deed of trust constituted unlawful "law business" under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 484.020 | Schriener: Quicken procured and assisted in preparing the deed form, invoking the statute | Quicken: It did not charge Schriener for document preparation; no "valuable consideration" was received from plaintiff | Dismissed — claim fails because plaintiff conceded no charge was made, so no "valuable consideration" under Missouri precedent |
| Whether MMPA claim satisfied ascertainable loss element | Schriener: Procurement of the deed of trust is an unlawful act giving rise to MMPA relief | Quicken: No charge to Schriener for document preparation, so no ascertainable loss | Dismissed — no ascertainable loss where plaintiff was not charged for preparation |
| Whether unjust-enrichment claim pleaded benefit conferred on Quicken | Schriener: Recovery is available for fees charged for document preparation; unjust enrichment covers this | Quicken: Plaintiff did not pay any separate preparation fee and thus conferred no benefit | Dismissed — no benefit alleged because plaintiff did not pay for document preparation |
| Whether district court erred in denying post-dismissal leave to amend and in entering dismissal with prejudice | Schriener: Should be allowed to amend or have dismissal converted to without prejudice | Quicken: Amendment would be untimely and futile given plaintiff’s concession | Affirmed — amendment would be futile given concession; no abuse of discretion in leaving dismissal with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Varga v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 764 F.3d 833 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and materials embraced by the pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading federal claims)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim for relief)
- Hargis v. JBL Corp., 357 S.W.3d 574 (Mo. 2011) (elements of unjust enrichment under Missouri law)
- Mountain Home Flight Serv., Inc. v. Baxter Cnty., Ark., 758 F.3d 1038 (8th Cir. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denial of leave to amend)
- Reuter v. Jax Ltd., Inc., 711 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2013) (de novo review of futility of proposed amendment)