Maley v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC
3:18-cv-13245
E.D. Mich.May 6, 2021Background
- Maley took a mortgage in 2004; Quicken Loans sold the loan to E*Trade Bank and Specialized Loan Servicing (SLS) became servicer in 2015 while borrower was in default.
- From Feb–Apr 2015 SLS-issued statements erroneously showed 0% interest and $1 monthly payment; May–Nov 2016 no statements were sent due to a systems error.
- In December 2016 SLS corrected its system and sent a statement showing the accurate variable rate (5.25%), the correct monthly payment (~$446.52), and past-due amounts (≈$9,823.44); SLS also sent a separate Structured Settlement Proposal that was never accepted.
- SLS’s billing statements expressly identified a Littleton, Colorado address as the designated recipient for Notices of Error/Qualified Written Requests (QWRs); Maley’s disputed letters were not sent to that address.
- Maley sued under RESPA, breach of contract, the FDCPA, and Michigan Occupational Code; discovery completed and defendants moved for summary judgment; the court granted summary judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RESPA: did servicer fail to respond to QWRs? | Maley says his communications were QWRs and SLS failed to timely respond. | SLS says it designated a Littleton QWR address on statements and Maley never sent QWRs there, so RESPA duties were not triggered. | Court: GRANTED to defendants—Maley did not send QWRs to the designated address, so no RESPA duty to respond. |
| Breach of contract: did monthly statements modify loan terms? | Maley contends statements (0% interest, $1 payment) modified the loan terms. | Defendants point to the written loan requiring a variable index rate and argue no mutual agreement modified the contract. | Court: GRANTED to defendants—no evidence of mutual consent to modify contract; Maley’s pleadings/evidence insufficient. |
| FDCPA: timeliness—were alleged violations within 1-year limitations? | Maley later asserts continuing false statements beyond Dec 2016. | Defendants: claim FDCPA claim rests on Dec 2016 statements and is time-barred (complaint filed Oct 17, 2018). | Court: GRANTED to defendants—claims based on Dec 2016 discrete events are outside the 1-year limitations period; continuing-violation theory rejected. |
| FDCPA / MOC merits: were statements false or unlawful? | Maley says statements falsely increased rate/amounts and attempted to collect unauthorized sums. | Defendants: December 2016 statement reflected the accurate variable rate and amounts; Structured Settlement was never accepted. | Court: GRANTED to defendants—no admissible evidence that Dec 2016 (or later) statements were false or unauthorized; summary judgment for defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (assessing genuine dispute standard and reasonable inferences)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must show specific facts creating genuine dispute)
- Rotkiske v. Klemm, 140 S. Ct. 355 (FDCPA statute of limitations begins on date of alleged violation)
- Berneike v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 708 F.3d 1141 (servicer may designate exclusive QWR address)
- Bivens v. Bank of Am., 868 F.3d 915 (address-designation rule; servicer not required to respond to QWRs sent elsewhere)
- Kloian v. Domino's Pizza LLC, 733 N.W.2d 766 (Mich. Ct. App.) (contract modification requires mutual consent)
- Quality Prods. & Concepts Co. v. Nagel Precision, Inc., 666 N.W.2d 251 (Mich.) (parties may not unilaterally alter contracts)