Quinn v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
1:13-cv-00115
S.D. Ala.Mar 12, 2014Background
- In 2007 Quinn refinanced his home loan; Saxon acquired servicing in Oct. 2007 and Ocwen took over servicing Dec. 1, 2009.
- Quinn fell behind in 2008–2009; in April 2009 he signed a Formal Repayment Plan acknowledging a default of ~$7,479 and promising payments to cure the default.
- Quinn made some payments under the plan but breached it (missed Sept. 30, 2009 payment); Saxon cancelled the plan, declared default, and transferred servicing to Ocwen.
- Ocwen received a couple of payments in Feb. 2010 but the loan remained delinquent; Ocwen initiated foreclosure in March 2010 and rejected an insufficient April 2010 payment.
- Quinn sued (state court, later removed) asserting declaratory relief, injunctive relief, an accounting, negligence and wantonness; he later (too late) sought leave to add breach, conversion, fraud, and deceptive-practice claims.
- Quinn proceeded pro se after his attorney withdrew; he did not respond to defendants’ summary-judgment motions and missed the scheduling-order deadline to amend pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of proposed amendment (Rule 16) | Quinn blamed former counsel and sought to add new claims after the scheduling deadline | Defendants said amendment was untimely, prejudicial, and Quinn must show good cause under Rule 16(b) | Denied — Quinn failed to show good cause; amendment untimely and would unduly prejudice defendants |
| Viability of negligence/wantonness claims under Alabama law | Quinn contends defendants negligently/wontonly mishandled and misapplied payments causing economic and emotional harm | Defendants argued Alabama law does not recognize negligent/wanton mortgage servicing claims for economic damages | Granted for defendants — negligence and wantonness claims dismissed as not actionable under Alabama law |
| Declaratory relief (was Quinn ever in default?) | Quinn sought declaration he was never in default or that any default was defendants’ error | Defendants pointed to documentary evidence showing default, Repayment Plan, missed payments, cancellation, and continued delinquency | Granted for defendants — summary judgment against Quinn; no declaration in his favor |
| Injunctive relief re: foreclosure and accounting | Quinn asked to enjoin foreclosure (scheduled Aug 30, 2012) and for a detailed accounting, including hypothetical counterfactuals | Defendants cited loan documents authorizing power of sale, undisputed default, and that Quinn already received account information; the August 2012 sale date had passed | Granted for defendants — injunctive claim moot (and meritless); accounting denied as unnecessary/redundant |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary-judgment standard and burdens)
- Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 626 (clients bound by acts/omissions of chosen counsel)
- Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417 (Rule 16 good-cause standard requires diligence)
- Mann v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291 (Rule 16 and amendment after scheduling deadline)
- One Piece of Real Prop. v. 5800 SW 74 Ave., 363 F.3d 1099 (court must ensure summary-judgment motion is supported by evidentiary materials)
- Costine v. BAC Home Loans, 946 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (Alabama law does not recognize negligent mortgage servicing for economic damages)
- Buckentin v. SunTrust Mortg. Corp., 928 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (mortgage-servicing duties arise from contract, not tort)
- Blake v. Bank of America, N.A., 845 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (same conclusion on negligent mortgage servicing)
- Brown v. First Fed. Bank, 95 So. 3d 803 (Ala. Civ. App.) (limits recovery for emotional distress in negligence absent physical injury)
- AALAR, Ltd. v. Francis, 716 So. 2d 1141 (Ala.) (limits on emotional-injury recovery)