Lorrie Thompson v. Bank of America, N.A.
773 F.3d 741
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Thompson signed a $354,800 mortgage note in 2006 with AME as lender, with transfer-rights language in note and deed of trust.
- The note and related instruments show sequential transfers culminating in BOA’s possession after acquiring Countrywide in 2008.
- Thompson sought a HAMP modification; BOA denied relief due to alleged insufficient documentation, despite Thompson providing documents repeatedly.
- Thompson filed suit alleging fraud, misrepresentation, quiet title, and related theories asserting securitization clouded title and deprived her of modification authority.
- The district court dismissed Thompson’s claims for failure to plead under Rule 9(b) and 12(b)(6); this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of securitization on obligations | Securitization severed the note from the deed; BOA lacks authority to modify. | Securitization does not alter borrower obligations or title; note and deed remain connected. | Securitization does not change borrower obligations or title; dismissal affirmed. |
| Fraud claims at loan origination | AME/Countrywide misrepresented true lender; withheld lender identity. | Originating documents disclosed right to transfer; no plausible misrepresentation. | No adequate pleadings of fraudulent inducement/intentionally misrepresented facts at closing. |
| Quiet title and chain of title | Unknown investors hold title; discovery should identify true lender to establish superior title. | Holder of the note has superior title; securitization does not void the note or chain of title. | Thompson failed to show superior title; quiet-title claim fails; title remains with note holder. |
| ECOA claim viability | BOA denied modification on discriminatory grounds or without proper basis under ECOA. | ECOA claim not triggered by denial of modification under HAMP; no adverse action shown. | No ECOA violation; claim properly dismissed. |
| Negligent hiring/supervision and slander of title | BOA’s employees unfit; MERS usage and misstatements harmed Thompson’s rights and title. | Plaintiff fails to name specific employees or plead causation; misstatements not proven malicious. | Claims inadequately pled; affirm dismissal on these theories as well. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hodge v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325 (Tenn. 2012) (defines intent-based and negligent misrepresentation elements)
- W.C. Early Co. v. Williams, 186 S.W.102 (Tenn. 1916) (note as negotiable instrument; assignment validity)
- Clark v. Jones, 27 S.W.1009 (Tenn. 1894) (deed follows note; transfer ownership principle)
- Mays v. Buckeye Rural Elec. Co-op., Inc., 277 F.3d 873 (6th Cir. 2002) (ECOA discrimination framework and elements)
- Robinson v. Omer, 952 S.W.2d 423 (Tenn. 1997) (Restatement-inspired negligent misrepresentation standard)