Onyeoziri v. Spivok
2012 D.C. App. LEXIS 269
| D.C. | 2012Background
- Onyeoziri bought a DC home in 2000 and used it as his residence until 2001, after which it was rented.
- In January 2006 Onyeoziri executed a $125,000 business/commercial promissory note to BB&T secured by a second deed of trust on the property.
- Balloon payments and subsequent extensions were made in 2007 and 2008, the latter accompanied by a forbearance agreement taking Onyeoziri’s life insurance as collateral.
- The forbearance agreement included an exculpatory clause waiving federal/state disclosure or consumer protection laws.
- Foreclosure proceedings were initiated with a notice of sale; the property was sold at auction on June 23, 2009, to BB&T for $59,000 after a contract to sell the property for $280,000 faced foreclosure timing concerns.
- Onyeoziri later amended his complaint asserting TILA, HLPA, and tort claims, including intentional interference with business relations, against Spivok, Collins, BB&T, and Metro Settlements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| TILA applicability to the loan | Onyeoziri argues TILA applies to his loan. | Spivok/Collins contend TILA does not cover commercial loans. | TILA does not apply;貸loan was commercial, not a principal-dwelling secured loan. |
| HLPA applicability to the loan | Onyeoziri asserts HLPA covers the balloon loan. | Defendants contend HLPA excludes commercial loans secured by rental property. | HLPA does not apply; loan not a covered residential mortgage. |
| Tort claim of intentional interference with business relations | Onyeoziri contends foreclosure proceeded despite contract to sell, causing interference. | Defendants argue foreclosure was legally justified to protect security interest. | Summary judgment on Count V reversed; issues of material fact remain for trial. |
| Impact of foreclosure notice timing on interference claim | Knowledge of the contract to sell post-notice could render foreclosure improper. | Notice alone insulated foreclosure as permissible under deed-of-trust process. | Material facts exist about why continued foreclosure after contract notice may be improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- NCRIC, Inc. v. Columbia Hosp. for Women Med. Ctr., Inc., 957 A.2d 890 (D.C.2008) (prima facie elements for interference; burden shifts to justify)
- Casco Marina Dev., L.L.C. v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 834 A.2d 77 (D.C.2003) (improper interference when a landlord with leverage blocks a sublease)
- Sorrells v. Garfinckel's, Brooks Bros., Miller & Rhoads, Inc., 565 A.2d 285 (D.C.1989) (Restatement-based justification framework for interference claims)
- Mitchell v. Aldrich, 163 A.2d 833 (Vt.1960) (when interference is used to intercept a contractual gain; privilege analysis)