McKay v. US Bank, National Association (CONSENT), 2:14-cv-00872

Plaintiffs Wayne and Shondra McKay sued U.S. Bank (Trustee for LXZ 2007-15N) seeking declaratory relief that U.S. Bank is not a party in interest and to quiet title to their home at 2722 Albemarle Road, Montgomery, AL.
Plaintiffs executed a 2006 mortgage in favor of MERS as nominee for Bayrock; the Note, Mortgage, and an assignment to U.S. Bank were filed by defendant and not disputed by Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs alleged they sent a "notarial presentment" and a "notarial notice of dishonor" requesting production of the original Note and Mortgage, and claim U.S. Bank admitted it was not a party in interest by failing to respond.
Plaintiffs have not made mortgage payments since June 2013; U.S. Bank moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
The court treated the Note, Mortgage, and Assignment as central and undisputed documents and considered them on the motion to dismiss.
The magistrate judge granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of presentment/dishonor statutes	McKay: mailed notarial presentment/notice of dishonor and demanded originals; statute entitles them to relief	U.S. Bank: presentment/dishonor provisions apply to parties entitled to enforce or obliged to pay; McKays are debtors, not entitled enforcers	Court: statutes inapplicable; plaintiffs misread presentment/dishonor provisions
Section 2605(k)(1)(D) (RESPA servicer response)	McKay: 10-business-day rule entitles them to presumption if no response	U.S. Bank: statute applies to servicers and to borrower requests for owner/assignee contact info; McKay did not allege U.S. Bank was servicer or made that request	Court: statute inapplicable to these facts
"Split-the-note" / possession of originals required to enforce note	McKay: U.S. Bank must possess original Note and Mortgage to be party in interest	U.S. Bank: Alabama law allows separation of note and mortgage; trustee can be real party in interest	Court: rejected split-the-note theory; U.S. Bank, as trustee with customary powers and recorded assignment, is a party in interest
Quiet title claim adequacy	McKay: seeks to quiet title based on above defects and alleged admissions	U.S. Bank: underlying legal theories fail; complaint lacks factual allegations required for quiet title	Court: dismissed quiet title claim for failure to plead peaceable possession and other elements; claim implausible under Twombly/Iqbal

D.L. Day v. Taylor, 400 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2005) (court may consider undisputed, central documents attached to a motion to dismiss)
Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125 (11th Cir. 2002) (same)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (refinement of Twombly pleading standard)
Coleman v. BAC Servicing, 104 So. 3d 195 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (Alabama rejects the "split-the-note" rule)
Navarro Sav. Ass’n v. Lee, 446 U.S. 458 (1980) (trustee with customary powers is a real party in interest)
Woodland Grove Baptist Church v. Woodland Grove Cmty. Cemetery Ass’n, Inc., 947 So. 2d 1031 (Ala. 2006) (elements for quiet title; peaceable possession requirement)