Virginia Poindexter v. Mercedes-Benz Credit
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11650
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Poindexter purchased an Audi in 2001; MBCC obtained a lien on her home via a deed of trust under a Home Owner’s Choice program.
- Deed of Trust promised release of the lien upon payment of all sums secured.
- In 2004 Poindexter traded the Audi; MBCC did not record a certificate of satisfaction releasing the lien.
- MBCC failed to timely release the lien, discovered in 2013 when refinancing; she alleged several violations.
- MBCC recorded a certificate of satisfaction in 2013 and Poindexter sued MBCC in September 2013; district court granted MBCC summary judgment on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract timeliness (statute of limitations) | Poindexter argues equitable estoppel tolls the deadline. | MBCC contends the claim accrued in 2004 and is untimely. | Timeliness proper; equitable estoppel not shown; claim time-barred. |
| Slander of title malice and timeliness | MBCC acted with malice by failing to release the lien promptly. | No malice or reckless disregard shown. | No genuine malice or recklessness; claim untimely under Virginia law. |
| RESPA qualified written request triggering duty | Communications by Poindexter/attorney constituted qualified written requests. | Statements did not constitute qualified written requests relating to servicing. | No RESPA duty triggered; district court properly granted summary judgment. |
| Virginia Consumer Protection Act applicability | MBCC is not a mortgage lender, so VCPA may apply; or that statute of limitations tolls. | MBCC qualifies as a mortgage lender; VCPA not applicable. | MBCC qualifies as a mortgage lender; VCPA claim fails as a matter of law. |
| Va. Code § 55-66.3 forfeiture timing | Claim timely because 90/10 day periods lapsed after payment. | Forfeiture arises 90 days after payment; filing in 2013 is outside 2-year limit. | Claim untimely; 90-day forfeiture accrues in 2004; barred by limitations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykins Narrow Fabrics Corp. v. Weldon Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc., 266 S.E.2d 887 (Va. 1980) (equitable estoppel requires clear and unequivocal evidence of misrepresentation or concealment)
- Medrano v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 704 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012) (servicing-related RESPA duties depend on whether request relates to servicing)
- Great Coastal Express, Inc. v. Ellington, 334 S.E.2d 846 (Va. 1984) (malice in slander of title includes gross indifference or reckless disregard)
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Lipscomb, 362 S.E.2d 32 (Va. 1987) (definition of recklessness in malice context)
- Berneike v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 708 F.3d 1141 (10th Cir. 2013) (statutory interpretation of RESPA timing and duties)