Mortgages FDCPA Law firm.

 
FREE EXCERPT

Byline: R.I. Lawyers Weekly Staff

Where two plaintiff borrowers have filed a complaint against the defendant mortgage holder and the codefendant law firm retained by the mortgage holder, the defendants' motion to dismiss should be allowed except as to two claims against the law firm under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692e(2), 1692e(10) and 1692f(6).

"The Court starts with [defendant] Carrington [Mortgage Services, LLC]'s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings with respect to all counts as brought by [plaintiff Ashley] Cordeiro, and with respect to Counts III and VI-VIII as brought by [plaintiff Ryan] Cordeiro.

"Based on the Complaint and the undisputed documents, no agreement exists between Carrington and Ms. Cordeiro; thus, there can be no action for breach of contract. Without the substantive claim for breach of contract, Ms. Cordeiro has no basis for equitable relief. Moreover, as will be discussed below, the [Truth in Lending Act (TILA)] and Regulation X [12 C.F.R. 1024.35] claims fail to adequately allege injury-in-fact. Therefore, the Court enters judgment in Carrington's favor with respect to Counts I-III and VI-VIII as brought by Ms. Cordeiro.

"The Court next considers the Motion with respect to Counts III and VI-VIII as brought by Mr. Cordeiro.

"'A claim for injunctive relief is not a standalone cause of action.' Therefore, the Court enters judgment in Carrington's favor as to Count III. If Mr. Cordeiro wishes to pursue injunctive relief as a remedy, he may request leave to amend the Complaint.

"Mr. Cordeiro alleges that Carrington violated certain TILA disclosure requirements as set forth in 15 U.S.C. 1641(f) and 1641(g). ... Carrington responds that Mr. Cordeiro does not have standing to bring these TILA claims because he lacks an injury-in-fact.

" Mr. Cordeiro's alleged damages are confined to expenditures of time and money related to bringing the TILA claims. ... Such allegations do not satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement. Therefore, the Court enters judgment in favor of Carrington as to Count VII.

"Mr. Cordeiro alleges that Carrington violated Regulation X by failing to timely and properly respond to requests for information and notices of error. ... For reasons stated in the preceding section, Mr. Cordeiro does not satisfy the injury-in-fact prong. Therefore, the Court enters judgment in favor of Carrington as to Counts VII and VIII.

"The Cordeiros allege that [defendant] Korde [& Associates, P.C.] sent...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP