Alston v. TowneBank
| Decision Date | 31 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | GJH-20-690 |
| Parties | CANDACE ALSTON, Plaintiff, v. TOWNEBANK, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
CANDACE ALSTON, Plaintiff,
v.
TOWNEBANK, et al., Defendants.
No. GJH-20-690
United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division
March 31, 2022
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GEORGE J. HAZEL, United States District Judge.
In this action, Plaintiff Candace Alston brings breach of contract, Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., and defamation claims against Defendants TowneBank, Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc. (“DMI”), and Trans Union, LLC. ECF No. 76. Now pending before the Court are Defendant DMI's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 77, and Defendant TowneBank's Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 78. No. hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2021). For the reasons discussed, the Motions are granted in part and denied in part.
I. BACKGROUND[1]
Plaintiff lives in Maryland. ECF No. 76 ¶ 2.[2] Defendant TowneBank is a community bank. Id. ¶ 3. Defendant DMI is a mortgage loan subservicing company. Id. ¶ 4. Plaintiff obtained a mortgage loan from Monarch Bank on November 12, 2010, to purchase a condominium in Prince George's County, Maryland. Id. ¶ 7. In July 2016, Defendant TowneBank acquired Monarch Bank. Id. ¶ 3.
From November 2016 to May 2017, Plaintiff and Defendants TowneBank and DMI disputed the status of Plaintiff's mortgage. Id. ¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 17. Plaintiff claims that Defendants were reporting inaccurate information about Plaintiff's loan to credit reporting agencies (“CRAs”). Id. ¶ 11. On September 8, 2017, Plaintiff and Defendant TowneBank agreed to resolve their dispute. Id. ¶ 27. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement between the parties, Plaintiff agreed to pay, and TownBank agreed to accept, a settlement sum as payment in full satisfaction of the loan. Id. ¶ 27; see also ECF No. 78-6 (“Settlement Agreement”).[3]
On September 8, 2017, Plaintiff paid TowneBank the settlement sum to satisfy the mortgage debt. Id. ¶ 28.[4] Plaintiff received the original promissory note, and a Certificate of
Satisfaction for the mortgage was recorded in the land records of Prince George's County on September 15, 2018. Id. ¶ 37. However, Defendants DMI and TowneBank then sent Plaintiff a mortgage statement on or around September 25, 2017. Id. ¶ 29.[5] The mortgage statement demanded Plaintiff pay TowneBank $2, 938.90 by October 1, 2017. Id. ¶ 33. Around October 23, Plaintiff wrote TowneBank to explain that, per their agreement, she had paid off the mortgage. Id. ¶ 37.
Plaintiff claims that Defendants DMI and TowneBank also reported to Experian, a CRA, that Plaintiff's account had a balance of $86, 409 and a delinquent payment history. Id. ¶ 38. Plaintiff says that she did not discover this inaccurate report until August 2019, nearly two years later. Id. ¶ 40. Plaintiff disputed this report on August 28, 2019. Id. ¶ 41. On November 28, 2019, the matter was resolved, and Experian reported the debt as paid, closed, and with no prior delinquency. Id. ¶ 45.
On February 5, 2019, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action against Defendants TowneBank, DMI, Equifax, and Trans Union in Virginia circuit court. See ECF No. 1. In her original Complaint, Plaintiff alleged violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 14-202; the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301; the Maryland Mortgage Fraud Protection Act, Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. § 7-401; and the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681i(a), 1681e(b), 1681(g). Id. On March 4, 2019, Equifax, with the consent of the other Defendants, removed this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Id. Defendants' motions to dismiss were mooted by Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 25, which was filed on April 23, 2019. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint dropped Plaintiff's
state statutory claims, added a claim for breach of contract, and added three additional FCRA claims, see 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681s-2(b)(1)(A)-(D).
In response to the First Amended Complaint, Defendants collectively filed three Motions to Dismiss and an Answer, ECF Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36. Plaintiff was then granted leave to file the Second Amended Complaint, which added additional factual allegations and a seventh FCRA claim, see 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b)(1)(E), and mooted Defendants' Motions to Dismiss. ECF Nos. 46, 53. The action was also transferred here, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). ECF No. 53. After retaining counsel, Plaintiff then moved for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint. ECF Nos. 64, 65. The Third Amended Complaint added a defamation claim. Defendant TowneBank consented to the motion, provided that Plaintiff would file no further amendments. See ECF No. 66. Defendants DMI and Equifax filed Notices of Joinder and Consent to Defendant TowneBank's Response. ECF Nos. 67, 71.
On March 11, 2021, this Court granted leave to file the Third Amended Complaint but noted Plaintiff's history of mooting motions to dismiss through motions to amend. ECF No. 75. This Court ordered the parties to respond to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint within 14 days. Id. In the Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff brings a claim of breach of contract claim against Defendants DMI and TowneBank, ECF No. 76 ¶¶ 47, 49 (Count I); Fair Credit Reporting Act claims against Trans Union and Equifax, id. ¶¶ 57, 63, 74, 86 (Counts II, III, IV); Fair Credit Reporting Act claims against Defendants DMI and TowneBank, id. ¶¶ 89, 102, 113, 123 (Counts V, VI, VII, VIII), and a defamation claim against Defendants DMI and TowneBank, id. ¶ 132 (Count IX).[6]
On March 24, 2021, Defendants DMI, TowneBank, and Equifax filed Motions to Dismiss. ECF Nos. 77, 78, 79. Defendant Trans Union filed an Answer, which also asserted affirmative defenses. ECF No. 80. Plaintiff then filed the Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Complaint on May 10, 2021. ECF No. 82. Defendant Equifax and Plaintiff then stipulated to the dismissal of Equifax. ECF No. 88. The Court denied the Motion for Leave to File a Fourth Amended Complaint and directed Plaintiff to respond to the pending Motions to Dismiss. ECF No. 91. Plaintiff has responded. ECF No. 92.[7]
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“A defendant may test the adequacy of a complaint by way of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” Maheu v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 12-cv-508-ELH, 2012 WL 1744536, at *4 (D. Md. May 14, 2012) (citing German v. Fox, 267 Fed.Appx. 231, 233 (4th Cir. 2008)). To overcome a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must allege enough facts to state a plausible claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim is plausible when “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the Court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
In evaluating the sufficiency of Plaintiff's claims, the Court accepts factual allegations in the Complaint as true and construes the factual allegations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268 (1994); Lambeth v. Bd of Comm'rs of Davidson C'ty., 407 F.3d 266, 268 (4th Cir. 2005). However, a court need not accept a plaintiff's legal conclusions as true, as “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. The Complaint must contain more than “legal conclusions, elements of a cause of action, and bare assertions devoid
of further factual enhancement[.]” Nemel Chevrolet, Ltd v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009). “Moreover, the court ‘need not accept the [plaintiff's] legal conclusions drawn from the facts,' nor need it ‘accept as true unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.'” Philips v. Pitt C'ty Mem'l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 616 n.26 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Breach of Contract (Count I)
In the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff and Defendants DMI and TowneBank agreed that Plaintiff would pay $44, 087.00 to Defendant TowneBank in exchange for TowneBank's cancellation of the promissory note. See ECF No. 78-6 at 4. Plaintiff waived her right to pursue any of the three active lawsuits she had against Defendants, id. at 5, as well as “any and all claims, demands, causes of action, or right or entitlement to relief, unknown or unknown, ” that could have been asserted in the lawsuits, as well as “any and all claims, demands, causes of action, or right or entitlement to relief, known or unknown in connection with the Loan, Note, Deed of Trust, or any credit report related thereto[, ]” id. at 9. Defendants agreed to request the deletion or removal of the reporting of the loan as late to CRAs Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union. Id. The Settlement Agreement noted that Defendants' “obligation under this Section . . . is limited to communicating . . . to Equifax, Experian, and Trans Union” the request. Id. The Agreement further noted that neither Defendant “shall be responsible [nor] liable for any failure on the part” of the CRAs to “comply with [Defendants'] requests that negative credit reporting be removed.” Id. Finally, the Settlement Agreement also provided that a party may enforce the Agreement through a suit filed in the District of Maryland. Id. at 8.
Plaintiff brings a breach of contract claim against Defendants DMI and TowneBank. ECF No. 76 ¶ 47. Plaintiff alleges that she fully performed her obligations under the Settlement Agreement, and Defendants breached the contract by failing to accept Plaintiff's payment and by reporting an outstanding balance to Experian. Id. ¶¶ 49, 50, 53.
The parties agree that Maryland law applies. See ECF No. 77-1 at 6; ECF No. 78-1 at 12; ECF No. 92 ¶ 8. To establish a claim for breach of contract, Plaintiff must...
To continue reading
Request your trial