OJELADE v. OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION
3:25-cv-01111
| D.N.J. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs, Olusola Ojelade and Sherifat Sola-Ojelade, allege mishandling of mortgage communications and payoff with defendants PHH Mortgage, Ocwen Financial, NewRez LLC, and Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing.
- Plaintiffs claim that a 2013 loan modification consolidated their two mortgages into one, and thereafter, they received no communications about a second mortgage.
- Upon selling their property in August 2024, plaintiffs were told by PHH/NewRez that a second mortgage remained unpaid, obligating them to pay $82,000 to Shellpoint, who acquired the mortgage in 2021.
- Plaintiffs assert this lack of disclosure violated the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), demanding both a refund and significant damages.
- PHH moved to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that the TILA claim was time-barred and unsupported by the actual loan documents.
- The court considered only the complaint and those documents integral to its allegations (including the mortgage and modification agreements), dismissing the claims against PHH, Ocwen, and NewRez as time-barred, but allowing claims against Shellpoint to proceed as within the statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs state a plausible TILA claim | Plaintiffs did not receive notice/statements about the second mortgage from 2013, believing it was extinguished | Plaintiffs' own documents show the loan modification did not consolidate mortgages; no TILA violation | Dismissed against PHH, Ocwen, NewRez (but not Shellpoint) |
| Whether TILA claim is time-barred | Claim should proceed; ongoing confusion and trauma | Violations occurred from 2013-2021; claim not filed until 2025, outside 1-year limitation | Time-barred as to PHH, Ocwen, NewRez, not as to Shellpoint |
| Applicability of equitable tolling to TILA claim | Defendants "confirmed" by conduct the second mortgage was closed | No evidence they actively misled or prevented timely action | No equitable tolling; allegations insufficient |
| Whether documents outside the pleadings may be considered | Plaintiffs submit exhibits (correspondence, program documents) | Only integral loan/mortgage documents should be included | Only documents explicitly relied on in the complaint considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se complaints held to less stringent standard)
- Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223 (scope of materials considered on motion to dismiss)
- Kulwicki v. Dawson, 969 F.2d 1454 (courts must accept factual allegations as true on motion to dismiss)
- Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380 (describing when equitable tolling applies)