Walker v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.
237 F. Supp. 3d 1326
S.D. Fla.2017Background
- Plaintiffs Jessica and Clifford Walker allege BB&T violated RESPA and Regulation X/Z by inadequately responding to a May 9, 2016 Request for Information (RFI) about fees, pay history, and ownership of their loan after foreclosure proceedings began.
- The RFI sought a detailed explanation and supporting invoices for seven specific charges totaling $4,821.28 and a complete payment history.
- BB&T responded within 30 days with a ledger and stated amounts for late fees and a $3,244.66 “Total Fees and Late Charges,” and refused to provide invoices.
- Plaintiffs sent a follow-up Notice of Error (NOE) asserting BB&T failed to adequately respond to the RFI; BB&T replied and Plaintiffs filed suit asserting violations of 12 U.S.C. § 2605 and 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.35–36, 1026.36.
- The Court considered the complaint and documentary record on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and concluded the complaint survives in part: the RFI-related claim stands, the NOE-based claim does not, and claims for certain emotional-distress damages were conceded/dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BB&T’s RFI response complied with Regulation X (12 C.F.R. §1024.36) | Walkers contend the response did not explain the basis for the $3,244.66 fees, refused invoices, and thus was inadequate | BB&T contends it answered by supplying a ledger and explanations for late fees; plaintiffs are merely dissatisfied | Court: Denied dismissal — plausible inadequate response; ledger without explanation and refusal to provide invoices can support RESPA claim |
| Whether the NOE alleged an "error" under §1024.35 such that a separate claim lies | Walkers argue the NOE put BB&T on notice of an error (improper fees) and its failure to respond | BB&T argues the NOE merely reasserted dissatisfaction with its prior RFI response and did not allege a listed error | Court: Granted dismissal as to the NOE-based claim — NOE did not allege a covered "error" |
| Whether request for a complete pay history is a servicing-related QWR | Walkers say the payment history request was tied to fee inquiries and thus concerns servicing | BB&T argues a bare request for payment history alone is not an error-related RESPA claim | Court: Denied dismissal — payment history request, combined with fee inquiries, relates to servicing and survives |
| Damages: entitlement to actual and statutory damages (pattern/practice) | Walkers plead actual damages (costs after inadequate response) and allege multiple consumer complaints showing a pattern or practice | BB&T disputes adequacy of damages allegations and challenges pattern/practice proof | Court: Plaintiffs adequately pleaded actual damages (limited) and plausible pattern/practice allegations to seek statutory damages; factual proof deferred |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must contain more than labels and conclusions)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (courts need not accept legal conclusions as factual allegations)
- Bates v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 768 F.3d 1126 (11th Cir.) (servicer response adequate where it explained its actions)
- Renfroe v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 822 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir.) (standards for pleading "pattern or practice" under RESPA)
- McLean v. GMAC Mortgage Corp., 595 F. Supp. 2d 1360 (S.D. Fla. 2009) (damages available under §2605 include actual and limited statutory damages)