Williams v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC, 8:22-cv-02523

Antoinette Williams, pro se, sued Carrington Mortgage Services (CMS), Bank of America Corp. (BAC), and Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) for alleged violations of TILA, FHA, and ECOA, related to a 2009 refinancing and subsequent assignment of her property’s mortgage.
Williams claimed she was unaware of the 2009 refinancing and the 2011 assignment of her mortgage and that these actions were discriminatory based on race and sex.
The property was foreclosed after substitute trustees were appointed in 2022, with the foreclosure sale ratified by the Maryland Circuit Court in March 2023.
Williams filed her initial complaint in Maryland state court in April 2022; the case was removed to federal court and amended in November 2023.
Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of statute of limitations and res judicata.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Statute of Limitations	Discovery rule should apply; she was blamelessly ignorant of claims	Claims are untimely under TILA, FHA, and ECOA statutes of limitation	Claims are time-barred and dismissed
Res Judicata	Claims were not or could not be raised in foreclosure proceeding	Foreclosure judgment precludes these claims (same parties, transaction)	Claims are precluded by res judicata
Notice and Discrimination	Defendants failed to notify her based on race/sex	No evidence of discriminatory intent or improper notice	Did not reach merits due to procedural grounds
Procedural Adequacy	Pro se pleadings should be liberally construed	Complaint lacks factual specificity required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, 12	Liberal construction does not overcome deficiencies

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for facial sufficiency of claim)
Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5 (1980) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)