Marchese v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3349
D. Maryland2013Background
- Marchese purchased property in Maryland in 1999 and refinanced several times, resulting in two deeds of trust totaling $729,100; the current loan is secured by a deed of trust for $634,000 and serviced by Chase.
- Chase commenced a foreclosure action in 2009 through substitute trustees; Marchese entered a Trial Period Plan under HAMP in July 2009.
- Chase did not finalize a permanent modification; reinstatement attempts occurred in 2010 with disputes over the required amount.
- Foreclosure action was dismissed in 2010; Marchese later sought modification and reinstatement, and filed a four-count complaint in state court in March 2012 alleging Maryland consumer protection and MMFPA claims.
- Chase removed the case to federal court; motions include Chase’s motion to dismiss, Marchese’s motion to remand, and Chase’s motion for leave to file a surreply; court ruled on remand, then dismissal and standing issues, leading to an unresolved declaratory judgment claim.
- The court ultimately denied remand, granted in part and denied in part Chase’s motion to dismiss (counts I–III) and dismissed Count IV for lack of standing; declaratory relief denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remand and amount in controversy | Marchese sought remand based on alleged lack of federal jurisdiction. | Chase argued removal proper; amount in controversy and diversity satisfied. | Remand denied; jurisdiction found based on trebled MMFPA damages and DOT value. |
| MCDCA claim (Count I) | Chase violated MCDCA by collecting debt with knowledge of rights not existing. | Trustees acted on Chase’s behalf; no MCDCA violation due to right to foreclose. | Count I dismissed; Chase had right to foreclose and allegations insufficient. |
| MCPA and MMFPA claims (Counts II–III) | Alleged false/misleading statements in loan modification and reinstatement; potential damages. | Claims fail for Foreclosure Action but survive for modification/reinstatement; pleading sufficiency. | Count II dismissed for Foreclosure Action but survives for modification; Count III dismissed for Foreclosure Action but survives for modification/reinstatement. |
| Count IV (declaratory/injunctive relief) standing | Seeks declaration that power of sale is ineffective and curative statute unconstitutional. | Challenged by Chalk decision; no standing. | Count IV dismissed sua sponte for lack of standing; declaratory judgment denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- JTH Tax, Inc. v. Frashier, 624 F.3d 635 (4th Cir. 2010) (amount in controversy assessed via underlying rights; relevant for jurisdictional analysis)
- Stovall v. SunTrust Mortg., Inc., 2011 WL 4402680 (D. Md. 2011) (MMFPA pleading and foreclosure context; sufficiency of allegations)
- Griffin v. Red Run Lodge, Inc., 610 F.2d 1198 (4th Cir. 1979) (jurisdictional amount and standing principles in context of jurisdiction)