Paul Mik, Jr. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2332
6th Cir.2014Background
- Miks sue Freddie Mac in district court after eviction from Meyer property following foreclosure.
- Miks had a lease with option to purchase; lease recorded after foreclosure occurred.
- Foreclosure sale led to writ of possession; tenants were removed via sheriff’s action.
- PTFA prohibits abrupt displacement and requires 90 days’ notice and lease-term rights; district court deemed PTFA non-actionable for private rights.
- Miks allege wrongful eviction, due-process concerns, and outrageous emotional distress under Kentucky law.
- Court must decide (1) private action under PTFA, (2) preemption by PTFA, (3) viability of state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| PTFA private right of action creation | Miks rely on PTFA protections to support claims. | PTFA provides no express or implied private right of action. | PTFA does not create a private right of action. |
| PTFA preemption vs. Kentucky law | PTFA protections preempt weaker state laws. | No preemption; Kentucky law governs eviction effects. | PTFA preempts less-protective state law; violations may support state-law claims. |
| Viability of state-law wrongful eviction claim | PTFA violations support a wrongful eviction claim under Kentucky law. | No state-law claim; eviction was lawful under Kentucky practice. | Wrongful eviction claim stated; other claims on due process and distress dismissed. |
| Due process and emotional distress claims | Freddie Mac violated due process and caused emotional distress. | Freddie Mac not a government actor; no due-process claim; no outrageous distress. | Due process and outrageous distress claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must show plausible entitlement to relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for anti-pleading)
- Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975) (four-factor test for implied private rights of action)
- Sandoval v. U.S., 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (intent to create private right analyses)
- Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002) (statutory text must show explicit beneficiary focus)
- Lebron v. Nat'l Railroad Passenger Corp., 513 U.S. 374 (1995) (government-actor framework for constitutional claims)
- Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2012) (state-law claims may rely on federal standards absent private right)
- Castleman v. Belt, 41 Ky. 157 (1841) (purchaser entitled to possession and can treat occupants as tenants or trespassers)
- Ball v. First National Bank, 80 Ky. 501 (1882) ( purchaser entitled to rents after sale confirmation)
- Henderson v. Meadows, 160 S.W.2d 588 (Ky. 1942) (buyer entitled to possession post-foreclosure)