Jones v. Aberdeen Proving Ground Fed. Credit Union

Decision Date05 April 2022
Docket NumberCivil Action ELH-21-1915
PartiesRODNEY T. JONES, Plaintiff, v. ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, et al., Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Maryland

RODNEY T. JONES, Plaintiff,
v.

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. ELH-21-1915

United States District Court, D. Maryland

April 5, 2022


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ellen L. Hollander, United States District Judge

In this debt dispute, plaintiff Rodney T. Jones filed suit against defendants Aberdeen Proving Ground Federal Credit Union (“APG”); Equifax Information Services, LLC (“Equifax”); and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”). ECF 1 (the “Complaint”). Jones alleges that APG continues to demand payment on a loan that he has paid in full, as reflected in a judgment. Id. And, he asserts that APG has falsely reported this purported debt to Equifax and Experian, which have failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of their credit reports regarding plaintiff. Id.

Specifically, the Complaint contains seven counts; six pertain only to APG.[1] In Count I, plaintiff alleges violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (“MCDCA”), Md. Code (2013 Repl. Vol., 2021 Supp.), § 14-201 et seq. of the Commercial Law Article (“C.L.”). In

1

particular, in Count I plaintiff claims that APG violated C.L. § 14-202(e) by knowingly disclosing or threatening to disclose information that affected plaintiff's reputation for credit worthiness; violated C.L. § 14-202(8) by attempting to maintain a lien on property when the lien did not exist; and violated C.L. § 14-202(11) by engaging in prohibited debt collection conduct. In Count II, plaintiff asserts violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”), C.L. § 13-101 et seq. Count III alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCFA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. Count IV alleges defamation. In Count V, plaintiff asserts “Invasion of Privacy - Intrusion Upon Seclusion”. Count VI seeks specific performance as to property. And, Count VII asserts violations of the FCRA by Equifax and Experian.

Equifax and Experian have answered the Complaint. ECF 17 (Experian); ECF 19 (Equifax); ECF 23 (Experian Amended Answer). But, APG has moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment under Rule 56, prior to discovery. ECF 20. The motion is supported by a memorandum (ECF 20-1, collectively the “Motion”) and several exhibits. ECF 20-2 to ECF 20-8.

Plaintiff opposes the Motion (ECF 22, the “Opposition”), supported by several exhibits. ECF 22-2 to ECF 22-7. In the Opposition and an accompanying Affidavit of plaintiff's counsel (ECF 22-7), plaintiff challenges conversion to summary judgment, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d). ECF 22 at 5-6. APG has replied. ECF 27 (the “Reply”).

No hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall construe the Motion as a motion to dismiss and deny the Motion.

2

I. Factual Background[2]

Plaintiff is a resident of Harford County, Maryland. ECF 1 at 2, ¶ 8. In 2006, plaintiff took out a home equity line of credit or “second mortgage” (the “Loan”) with APG. See ECF 20-3 (the “Note” for the Loan).[3]

In particular, plaintiff borrowed $81, 900, to be paid back in monthly installments with interest at a yearly rate of 9.24%. ECF 20-3 at 1. The Note was secured by property located on Orchid Court in Edgewood, Maryland (the “Property”). ECF 1, ¶¶ 111-14. Plaintiff is in actual, peaceable possession of the Property, and plaintiff and his wife are title owners of the Property. Id. ¶¶ 109-110. APG claims a deed of trust on the Property, but plaintiff disputes APG's continued entitlement to it. Id. ¶¶ 114-16.

On October 30, 2017, APG initiated a debt collection action against plaintiff in the Circuit Court for Harford County, seeking to collect “what it alleged to be the whole amount owed on the second mortgage.” Id. at 3, ¶ 1; see also ECF 20-4 (Docket for Aberdeen Proving Ground Federal Credit Union v. Rodney T Jones, Case No. 12-C-17-002882 (Harford Cty. Cir. Ct.)) at 2.[4] In March 2018, APG and Jones reached a “Stipulation of Settlement & Dismissal Under MD Rule 2-506(b).”

3

ECF 20-5 (the “Stipulation”). The Stipulation was signed by Jones on March 5, 2018, and by APG's counsel on March 23, 2018. See id. at 3.

The “Recitals” to the Stipulation state, in part: “Plaintiff [meaning APG] and Defendant [meaning Jones] are presently parties to an action in this Honorable Court, ” and they “desire to settle this matter under the terms set forth below.” Id. at 1. It also states, id.:

WHEREAS, Defendant admits that [there is] an unpaid principal balance of $35, 557.67, plus accumulated interest through February 12, 2018 of $477.35 plus pre-judgment interest from February 12, 2018 through the date of judgment at the contractual rate of 9.2400, plus attorney's fees of $5 336.00, and court costs . . . .

In addition, in the section titled “Terms, ” the Stipulation provides: “Upon the execution of this Stipulation, Plaintiff agrees to dismiss without prejudice the above captioned case pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-506(b).” Id. (underlining in original). For his part, Jones agreed to pay the amount described above “in full satisfaction of the claim provided Defendant [meaning Jones] complies with the provisions of this Stipulation.” Id. This amount was to be paid in monthly installments of $900, due on the last day of each month, beginning January 30, 2018. Id. at 2. The Complaint implies, although it does not make explicit, that APG had asserted that Jones owed more than the $35, 557 amount to which it agreed in the Stipulation.[5]

Moreover, the Stipulation provides: “In the event Defendant fails to make payment as described above, Defendant will be in default.” Id. And, “[i]n the event of default, [Jones] consents to judgment in the full amount as indicated in the Recitals above, less credit for payment made.” Id. In addition, the Stipulation indicated that it constituted the “entire understanding between the parties respecting the subject matter hereof, ” with “no representations, agreements or

4

understandings, oral or written . . . relating to the subject matter . . . which are not fully set forth herein.” Id.

According to the docket, the Stipulation was filed with the circuit court on March 26, 2018. ECF 20-4 at 3. And, a “Stipulated/Dismissed” notation was entered on that court's docket on March 29, 2018. Id. at 4.

However, in the State litigation on June 25, 2018, APG filed a “Motion to Reopen Case and for Consent Judgment.” ECF 22-2 (the “2018 Motion”); see ECF 20-4 at 4. In the 2018 Motion, APG asserted that it had “attempted to resolve the matter” with Jones “by entering into” the Stipulation, and recited the amount described above that Jones had admitted was due and owing in the Stipulation. ECF 22-2 at 1. According to APG, Jones “failed to pay as agreed and is in breach and default thereof, ” and “never made a payment following this agreement.” Id. And, APG asserted: “Upon default, Defendant [meaning Jones] agreed to consent to judgment in the full amount as stated in the Recitals above, less payment for credits made.” Id. Therefore, the 2018 Motion asked the circuit court to enter a “judgment by Stipulated Agreement” in favor of APG and against Jones for the principal sum of $34, 367.99; accrued interest through June 18, 2018, of $147.90; pre-judgment interest from June 19, 2018, through judgment at a contract rate of 9.24%; and post judgment interest at the statutory rate per annum. Id. at 1-2; see id. at 3 (proposed order).[6]

5

Jones did not respond to the 2018 Motion. See ECF 20-4 at 4. And, by Order dated July 23, 2018, the circuit court granted the 2018 Motion, and entered a consent judgment against Jones for the amount requested by APG. ECF 20-6 at 2 (the “2018 Order”); see also ECF 1 at 3, ¶ 2; ECF 20-4 at 4. The next day, July 24, 2018, the Clerk of the Circuit Court docketed the Order, as well as a “Notice of Recorded Judgment, ” reflecting that judgment had been entered against Jones and in favor of APG for a total of $34, 515.89. ECF 20-6; ECF 20-4 at 4. The docket provides the detail of an award in the principal amount of $34, 367.99, “Plus accrued interest through June 18, 2018 of $147.90; Plus pre-judgment interest from June 19, 2018 through judgment at the contract rate of 9.24% ($8.7003 per day); Post Judgment interest at the statutory rate per annum.” ECF 20-4 at 4.[7] APG characterizes the 2018 Order as “an interlocutory order.” ECF 20-1 at 3.

Plaintiff alleges that, as of July 24, 2018, “the total amount due” on his Loan was the amount of the judgment, i.e., $34, 515.89, plus additional interest, “and no more.” ECF 1 at 4, ¶ 4. And, he claims that, “[o]ver the following three years, ” he “paid in excess of $28, 000.00 on the judgment.” Id. at 4, ¶ 5.

In early 2021, plaintiff wanted to “pay off the judgment in its entirety . . . .” Id. at 4, ¶ 6. To that end, he contacted APG's attorneys to inquire as to the amount “left to pay.” Id.; see ECF 22-5 (email chain between plaintiff and counsel for APG). Plaintiff first emailed counsel for APG on January 12, 2021, asking for a “payoff quote.” ECF 22-5 at 7. On February 8, 2021, David

6

Poch, an attorney representing APG, wrote to plaintiff: “We have confirmed with APG FCU and the current payoff for the HELOC is $40, 772.93.” ECF 22-5 at 3; see ECF 1 at 4, ¶ 7.[8] But, according to plaintiff, he was also told that only $12, 563.25 remained on the judgment. ECF 1 at 4, ¶ 7.

Plaintiff responded to the lawyer, asserting that the larger sum was “completely inaccurate.” ECF 22-5 at 2. He argued that he did not owe an amount that exceeded the sum reflected in the 2018 Order, and that based on his payments of more than $28, 000 between July 31, 2018, and January 31, 2021, there should be less than $40, 772.93 remaining to pay off the Loan. Id. at 2-3. In response, counsel for APG stated: “The settlement amount was for...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT