Potter v. Clear Recon Corporation, 2:24-cv-01173

Plaintiffs Nyla and Lyndell Potter inherited a family home in Kent, WA, in 2015 and co-owned it, living there since 1982.
They defaulted on a home equity line of credit serviced by Bank of America after disputes over property tax payments and confusion about mortgage payment acceptance.
After attempting to pay off the debt with a reverse mortgage (not funded in time), their home was foreclosed and sold on May 17, 2024.
Plaintiffs sued Bank of America, Clear Recon (trustee), and the home’s purchaser for various state law claims and a federal RESPA claim, seeking to void the sale and recover damages.
Defendants moved to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6), contending that plaintiffs failed to state any valid claims.
The court granted the motion to dismiss all claims, some with and some without leave to amend, citing contradictions in plaintiffs’ own filings and failures in legal pleading.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
RESPA Claim (Failure under § 2605(k))	Bank should have postponed sale for pending reverse mortgage funds	No request to correct error; foreclosure was lawful	Dismissed; no plausible request to correct error alleged
Private Right of Action under 12 C.F.R. § 1024.38	Delay in confirming successor interest violated RESPA regs	No private right of action; only CFPB can enforce	Dismissed; cannot be privately enforced
CPA Violation (Agricultural Use & Good Faith)	Nonjudicial foreclosure on principal agricultural property violated law and good faith duty	Property not principally agricultural; no knowledge of imminent payoff; proper notices given	Dismissed; not plausible, allegations contradicted by evidence
Negligence by Bank and Trustee	Both owed and breached duties under statute and common law	No cognizable duty or plausible breach alleged	Dismissed; no actionable duty or breach alleged

Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2007) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard—accept well-pleaded facts as true)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must state a plausible claim)
Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 719 P.2d 531 (Wash. 1986) (elements for Washington CPA claim)
Rorvig v. Douglas, 873 P.2d 492 (Wash. 1994) (elements for slander of title claim)
Leingang v. Pierce Cnty. Med. Bureau, Inc., 930 P.2d 288 (Wash. 1997) (elements for tortious interference)
Klem v. Washington Mut. Bank, 295 P.3d 1179 (Wash. 2013) (unfair v. deceptive practices under CPA)
Brown v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 617 P.2d 704 (Wash. 1980) (malice standard for slander of title)
Trujillo v. Nw. Tr. Servs., Inc., 355 P.3d 1100 (Wash. 2015) (CPA claim based on foreclosure process)
Albice v. Premier Mortg. Servs. of Washington, Inc., 276 P.3d 1277 (Wash. 2012) (trustees must reissue statutory notices after 120-day postponement window)