Ward v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
89 A.3d 115
D.C.2014Background
- Scales and Ward, married, owned the Orange Street property as tenants by the entirety and later defaulted on two Wells Fargo loans.
- Wells Fargo foreclosed on the property and hired Rosenberg & Associates to initiate proceedings; Wells Fargo also sought possession.
- notices of foreclosure and eviction were sent to the Orange Street address; Wells Fargo purchased the property at foreclosure on March 23, 2010.
- Scales and Ward filed a separate wrongful-foreclosure action and a possession action in May 2010, which were consolidated; a plea-of-title issue and an undertaking requirement were raised.
- A protective order required deposit of disputed rent into the court registry; funds totaling $7015 were deposited and later disbursed to Wells Fargo.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment against Scales and Ward on several wrongful-foreclosure and related claims; on appeal, the court addressed defendants’ status, title, protective order, and statute-of-limitations defenses, ultimately affirming the trial court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Scales and Ward were proper defendants in the possession action | Scales/Ward claim they did not occupy or lease, so not proper defendants | Wells Fargo/W&A argue they detained possession as former owners and as current landlords | Yes; Scales and Ward were proper defendants. |
| Whether Wells Fargo had title to sue for possession | Equitable title was lacking since foreclosure not completed | Equitable title via valid purchase contract suffices to pursue possession | Equitable title suffices; Wells Fargo could pursue possession. |
| Whether the protective order and registry payments were properly imposed and handled | Protective order was improper and funds should be returned | Protective order appropriate to preserve status quo; funds properly deposited | No abuse of discretion; protective order upheld and funds properly handled. |
| Whether TILA and disparate-impact claims were time-barred | TILA claims timely due to tolling; disparate-impact claims timely under continuing-violation/critical-mass | TILA claims untimely; no adequate tolling; disparate-impact claims time-barred | TILA claims time-barred; no tolling; disparate-impact claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindsey v. Prillman, 921 A.2d 782 (D.C. 2007) (underyling protective-order/undertaking context in LT actions)
- Fiske v. Bigelow, 9 D.C. (2 MacAr.) 427 (D.C. 1876) (equitable title suffices to maintain possession action)
- Grimes v. Newsome, 780 A.2d 1119 (D.C. 2001) (equitable title as prerequisite to service/possession actions)
- Penny v. Penny, 565 A.2d 587 (D.C. 1989) (analogy to undertaking under LT Rule 5(c))
- Mason v. United States, 956 A.2d 63 (D.C. 2008) (judicial estoppel factors apply to opposing positions in litigation)
- Brown v. M St. Five, LLC, 56 A.3d 765 (D.C. 2012) (privity extends estoppel to spouse in property ownership context)
- Logan v. LaSalle Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 80 A.3d 1014 (D.C. 2013) (TILA statute of limitations and tolling)