Thomas Riddle v. Bank of America Corp
588 F. App'x 127
3rd Cir.2014Background
- Riddle and Fischer sue BAC, BANA, and BARC, plus two MI insurers Genworth and United Guaranty, under RESPA § 2607 for alleged kickbacks in private mortgage insurance reinsurance arrangements.
- Both homes were purchased in 2005 with mortgages through BANA; each borrower obtained private mortgage insurance from a MI insurer.
- Closing disclosures stated the reinsurance arrangement could be issued by an affiliate of BAC and would not increase premiums or duration of coverage.
- Plaintiffs did not investigate the reinsurance issue between 2005 and 2012, when counsel contacted them with a potential RESPA claim.
- District Court granted summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds (RESPA one-year limit under § 2614) and found no equitable tolling based on lack of due diligence or active misrepresentation; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is RESPA's one-year statute of limitations subject to equitable tolling? | Riddle and Fischer argue tolling applies under unusual circumstances. | BAC et al. contend plaintiffs failed diligence and no active misleadings justify tolling. | No tolling; equitable tolling not satisfied. |
| Did plaintiffs exercise due diligence to toll the statute? | Riddle and Fischer claim reasonable diligence given reliance on closing disclosures. | Defendants assert plaintiffs did nothing to investigate for seven years. | Insufficient diligence to toll the statute. |
| Was there active mislead or concealment justifying tolling? | Plaintiffs argue misrepresentation by defendants delayed filing. | Court finds scant evidence of active misleadings or concealment. | No active misleadings shown; tolling not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santos ex rel. Beato v. United States, 559 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2009) (establishes elements of equitable tolling for timely filing)
- Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (U.S. 2007) (equitable tolling described as rare and unusual)
- Hedges v. United States, 404 F.3d 744 (3d Cir. 2005) (tolls used sparingly)
- Cetel v. Kirwan Fin. Grp., Inc., 460 F.3d 494 (3d Cir. 2006) (three elements for tolling with due diligence requirement)
- Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1990) (due diligence obligation in tolling)
- Mathews v. Kidder, Peabody & Co., Inc., 260 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2001) (discusses tolling for RESPA claims)
- Forbes v. Eagleson, 228 F.3d 471 (3d Cir. 2000) (no evidence of active misleadings supporting tolling)
- Seamans v. Temple Univ., 744 F.3d 853 (3d Cir. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)