Muldrow v. EMC Mortgage Corp.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20379
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- In Oct 2006, plaintiff obtained a loan from Encore Credit, secured by property in DC.
- Servicing of the loan was transferred to EMC on Dec 4, 2006.
- In spring 2008 the plaintiff missed payments, leading EMC to refer the loan to foreclosure and hire Rosenberg as substitute trustee.
- On Jun 23, 2008 Rosenberg notified foreclosure action, advised dispute rights, and offered a potential workout program.
- Plaintiff disputed the debt, executed a July 28, 2008 repayment agreement with EMC stopping foreclosure, but she later defaulted and EMC resumed foreclosure in Sept 2008.
- Plaintiff filed suit in Sept 2008 alleging DCCPPA violations by EMC and FDCPA violations by Rosenberg; the case was removed to federal court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| DCCPPA standing and damages | Muldrow suffered damages from EMC's alleged misrepresentations. | No correlation shown between claimed damages and DCCPPA violations; no standing. | EMC summary judgment granted; plaintiff failed to prove damages/standing under DCCPPA. |
| FDCPA notice sufficiency and 'cease collection' | Rosenberg's notice misled and continued collection after dispute. | Notice complied with FDCPA and did not show continued collection after dispute. | Rosenberg summary judgment granted; plaintiff failed to show material facts of continued collection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 321 F.3d 292 (2d Cir. 2003) (actual damages not required for standing under FDCPA)
- Osbourne v. Capital City Mortgage Corp., 667 A.2d 1321 (D.C. 1995) (damages required to establish standing under DCCPPA)
- Jackson v. ASA Holdings, LLC, not available (D.D.C. 2010) (standing under DCCPPA requires injury)
- Greene v. Dalton, 164 F.3d 671 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (summary judgment standard; need supporting facts)
- Arrington v. United States, 473 F.3d 329 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (evidence requirement for summary judgment in civil rights context)
- Lytes v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority, 572 F.3d 936 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (standards for responding to summary judgment; pleading deficiencies)