Saucier v. Countrywide Home Loans
64 A.3d 428
| D.C. | 2013Background
- Saucier and ten co-parties pursued claims arising from converting King’s Court rentals into condominiums and related FHA-insured loans.
- Defendants Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and Presidential Bank FSB were sued for common law fraud, conspiracy, and CPPA violations.
- The trial court granted Presidential summary judgment on all counts and Countrywide summary judgment on most counts, with three plaintiffs surviving one CPPA claim.
- The DC Court of Appeals affirmed some rulings but vacated others, notably regarding CPPA §28-3904(f) and the Condominium Association’s standing.
- The Association sought standing to sue on behalf of its members for CPPA claims and to recover damages for common-area expenditures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty requirement in common law fraud | Saucier argued no duty is required for omissions under DC law. | Countrywide/Presidential contended no duty to disclose and no explicit/implicit misrepresentation. | Common law fraud claim affirmed to the extent of no duty established; dismissal upheld. |
| CPPA §28-3904(e) misrepresentation | Misrepresentations by lenders violated §28-3904(e). | No affirmative or implied misrepresentations; statements about loan approvals were true. | §28-3904(e) claim affirmed against plaintiffs. |
| CPPA §28-3904(f) omissions without duty | Omissions in loan approvals could be material and misleading without a pre-existing duty. | No duty to disclose FHA/HUD-related information; omissions cannot be actionable. | Vacated and remanded for trial on §28-3904(f); court declined to require a duty to disclose as a formal element. |
| Civil conspiracy | Mortgage lenders conspired with seller and appraisers to deceive buyers. | Evidence insufficient to show knowing participation or joint deception. | Summary judgment affirmed for mortgage defendants; conspiracy claim rejected. |
| Standing of the Condominium Association | Association lacks injury-in-fact but may have associational standing given costs paid for roof and common areas. | Association lacked injury-in-fact and associational standing; dismissal appropriate. | Association has standing; injury-in-fact shown; remanded for §28-3904(f) trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schiff v. AARP, 697 A.2d 1193 (D.C. 1997) (duty to disclose not required for each misrepresentation when disclosure is adequate)
- Kapiloff v. Abington Plaza Corp., 59 A.2d 516 (D.C. 1948) (duty to disclose required to support fraud theory)
- Pyne v. Jamaica Nutrition Holdings, Ltd., 497 A.2d 118 (D.C. 1985) (fiduciary duty required disclosure in some contexts)
- Green v. H&R Block, Inc., 735 A.2d 1039 (Md. 1999) (material omission test under consumer protection act)
- Slaney v. Westwood Auto, Inc., 322 N.E.2d 768 (Mass. 1975) (unfair or deceptive practices not limited by common-law duty)
- Fort Lincoln Civic Ass’n, Inc. v. Fort Lincoln New Town Corp., 944 A.2d 105 (D.C. 2008) (CPPA framework and remedial purpose; materiality standards)
- Grayson v. AT&T Corp., 15 A.3d 219 (D.C. 2011) (en banc discussion on standing and consumer protection)