Taghadoss v. Bank of America, N.A.
6:17-cv-01894
M.D. Fla.Dec 21, 2017Background
- In 2015 Bank of America (BOA) obtained a final judgment of foreclosure against the Buckleys for $189,560.28 on a mortgage that was junior to a Ditech mortgage.
- Ditech later brought its own foreclosure based on a larger note and the property value exceeded Ditech’s note.
- A judicial foreclosure sale occurred on January 5, 2016; plaintiff Mehdi Taghadoss attended and, while mentally impaired by diabetes-related illness, bid $193,000 on the BOA mortgage.
- Taghadoss paid $193,000 to the clerk of court and a certificate of title issued to him; BOA netted $192,906.92 from the sale.
- Taghadoss later filed suit asserting unjust enrichment and rescission for mental incompetence; BOA moved to dismiss both counts.
- The court considered the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), accepting factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion and applying federal pleading standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unjust enrichment was stated | Taghadoss conferred a benefit (the sale proceeds) on BOA and it would be inequitable for BOA to keep the funds | BOA contends Taghadoss paid the clerk of court, not BOA, so no direct benefit was conferred | Court: Denied dismissal; payment via clerk was an intermediary and Taghadoss alleged a direct benefit to BOA totaling $192,906.92 |
| Whether rescission for mental incompetence was stated | Taghadoss alleged debilitating mental illness at time of sale and that his attorney notified BOA seeking reimbursement/undoing of the transaction | BOA argues Taghadoss did not allege an offer to restore BOA or that BOA was a party to the transaction because payment was to the clerk | Court: Denied dismissal; the attorney’s demand sufficed to allege rescission notice and the restoration issue is remediable on the merits; BOA’s clerk argument not persuasive |
Key Cases Cited
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957) (pleading standard historically described)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plaintiff must plead factual content plausibly suggesting entitlement to relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (labels and conclusions insufficient; well-pleaded facts must permit plausible inference)
- Fito v. Attorneys’ Title Ins. Fund, Inc., 83 So. 3d 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (elements of unjust enrichment and requirement that plaintiff show direct benefit)
- Hartnett v. Lotauro, 82 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1955) (mental incompetence can warrant rescission of real estate transaction)
- Billian v. Mobil Corp., 710 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (elements required to plead rescission)