24 F. Supp. 3d 712
S.D. Ohio2014Background
- Marais, as loan borrower, alleged RESPA, TILA, RESPA, and OCSPA claims against Chase as loan servicer.
- Marais obtained a 2006 refinance; Chase later serviced the loan; repayment plan offered in 2008-2009; questions about misapplied payments and fees.
- Marais sent a QWR on January 3, 2011 seeking corrections and information; Chase responded with a generic form letter attaching documents.
- Chase admitted it did not correct the account and conducted no real investigation; response failed to explain why the account was correct.
- District court previously dismissed TILA/RESPA claims; the Sixth Circuit reversed on RESPA, leaving RESPA and state-law claims live.
- Court stayed summary-judgment briefing on damages and ordered limited discovery on damages and allocation of payments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of QWR under RESPA §2605(e)(1)(B). | Marais's QWR identified errors and provided reasons. | Chase argues QWR was adequate under form and attached documents. | Marais's QWR was sufficient under §2605(e)(1)(B). |
| Whether Chase complied with §2605(e)(2) disjunctive responses (A, B, or C). | Chase failed to correct or adequately explain/investigate the account. | Chase contends it complied via documents and explanations in letters. | Chase failed to comply with §2605(e)(2) as it conducted no real investigation and provided no adequate explanation or correction. |
| Credit reporting timing under §2605(e)(3). | Chase delayed reporting beyond the 60-day protection window after receiving the QWR. | Timing depends on when Chase reported relative to the QWR; may not have violated. | There is a factual issue as to the exact date of reporting; not clearly violated on the record. |
| Damages viability under RESPA §2605(f)(1). | Damages include QWR expenses, misapplied payments, fees, and potential credit damage. | Limitations on actual damages and arguments about what constitutes actual damages. | Marais may recover actual damages (including QWR costs) and possibly related damages; statutory damages moot if actual damages proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vega v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Detroit, 622 F.2d 918 (6th Cir. 1980) (RESPA remedial purpose and scope)
- Carter v. Welles-Bowen Realty, Inc., 553 F.3d 979 (6th Cir. 2009) (RESPA liberally construed; servicing must respond reasonably)
- Medrano v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 704 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (RESPA responses must be responsive and investigative)
- Mellentine v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 515 F. App’x 419 (6th Cir. 2013) (Damages in RESPA claims may include related costs and losses)
- Houston v. U.S. Bank Home Mortgage Servicing, 505 F. App’x 543 (6th Cir. 2012) (Damages scope for RESPA may be interpreted broadly)