Plouffe v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-5699
| Decision Date | 31 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-5699 |
| Parties | WILLIAM C. PLOUFFE, JR., Plaintiff, v. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
This is a case about one man's dispute with certain banks, and employees of those banks, regarding how they handled his home mortgage. The pro se plaintiff, William C. Plouffe, Jr., filed this action against defendants Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, M & T Bank, Hakim Collins, Mei-Ly Jean Pierre, and various John Does. Altogether, Plouffe brings a total of thirty-three (33) claims. He seeks relief pursuant to various federal statutes: the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (FDCPA), Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., and Regulation X (RESPA), Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, 12 U.S.C. § 5201 et seq. (EESA), American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), and Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP). Plouffe also seeks relief under Pennsylvania law for fraud, breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of public policy.
For the following reasons, I will grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion to dismiss. I will deny the motion with respect to Plouffe's claims under the FDCPA and RESPA, including the claims against the individual defendants. I will grant the motion as to all other claims.
Plouffe lives in a house located in Kutztown, Pennsylvania. (Am. Compl. ¶ 12). Plouffe has lived in this house since 2008, and he has a mortgage. (Id.) The mortgage is "covered under Fannie Mae and federally related under 12 C.F.R. § 1024.5." (Id.)2 Plouffe's mortgage was first held by the entities Mortgage America and JP Morgan Chase. (Id. ¶ 13). At some point during the time the mortgage was held by these two entities, Plouffe defaulted on the mortgage. (Id. ¶ 14). He then obtained a HEMAP Loan Modification through Pennsylvania. (Id.)3
After Plouffe obtained the HEMAP loan modification, he defaulted again. (Id. ¶ 14). After this second default, Plouffe's mortgage was purchased by or transferred to defendant M & T Bank. (Id.) After the mortgage was transferred to M & T, Plouffedefaulted for a third time on the mortgage. (Id. ¶ 16). After this third default, Plouffe entered into negotiations, with Defendants M & T and Bayview, seeking another loan modification. (Id. ¶ 16). This second loan modification was through the federal Home Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"). (Id.) HAMP was created by Congress pursuant to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. (Id. ¶ 16 n.2).
Bayview initiated the negotiations with Plouffe regarding this HAMP loan modification. (Id. ¶ 21). The individual defendants in this case, Hakim Collins and Mei-Ly Jean Pierre, are both employees of Bayview. (Id. ¶ 20). In Plouffe's discussions with Bayview, Bayview "repeatedly stated that they were a debt collector for the purposes of the FDCPA." (Id. ¶ 21). Following these discussions with Bayview, Plouffe was accepted into the HAMP program, after which he completed a three-month trial period by August 2014. (Id. ¶ 23).
After being "accepted" into the HAMP program, Plouffe again defaulted on his mortgage (this being the fourth time). (Id. ¶ 24). At that time, Plouffe was "waiting for a court ruling on his [Social Security] disability appeal." (Id.). After his fourth default, Plouffe corresponded with Bayview, M & T, and a law firm, for a one-year period, through letters and via the telephone. This one-year period is the focal point of this case.
On October 16, 2014, the law firm of Mattlement, Wientroh, and Miller sent Plouffe a letter. (Id. ¶ 25). In this letter, the firm indicated that they were going to pursue foreclosure proceedings against Plouffe due to his default on his mortgage. (Id.) Five days later, on October 21, 2014, Plouffe received a letter from Bayview. (Id. ¶ 26). Theletter from Bayview was an "Act 91" letter and contained a "Program Application." (Id.)4 Plouffe completed this application and submitted it. (Id. ¶ 27). During this time, Plouffe spoke with defendant Hakeem Collins, a Bayview employee, who stated that Bayview "was a debt collector and that there would be no legal foreclosure proceedings started/continued against him as long as there was a pending application for the Program by Plouffe." (Id. ¶ 28).
After Plouffe submitted his application, Bayview sent him a letter. (Id. ¶ 29). In this letter, Bayview stated—contrary to its previous position—that the foreclosure proceedings against Plouffe would continue to be pursued. (Id.) The letter went on to list several defects in Plouffe's Act 91 application: (1) date on the form; (2) no food stamp award letter; (3) no food stamp receipts; (4) hardship letter; and (5) unemployment award. (Id.) This letter had no deadline. (Id.)
After receiving this letter from Bayview, Plouffe called Bayview and spoke to Collins on the telephone. (Id. ¶ 31). Plouffe told Collins that the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare did not issue food stamp receipts, but he told Collins he would send a document indicating he had received food stamps. (Id.) Collins told Plouffe that this document would not be sufficient. (Id.) Bayview also refused to change their position regarding pursuit of foreclosure proceedings against Plouffe. (Id. ¶ 32) Duringthis time, Plouffe requested a forbearance until his Social Security petition was resolved, but this request was not processed by Bayview. (Id. ¶¶ 33-34).
Following the above communications, Plouffe received another letter from Bayview. (Id. ¶ 35). In this letter, Bayview represented that the value of Plouffe's home was $125,000. (Id.) On December 30, 2014, Plouffe received yet another letter from Bayview. (Id. ¶ 36). This letter listed other "defects" with Plouffe's Act 91 application, some of which were not listed in the previous letter: (1) lack of a homeowners insurance policy; (2) lack of food stamp receipts; and (3) lack of a 2013 income tax return. (Id.) Although this letter was dated December 30, 2014, it listed a deadline for submission of these documents as one day earlier: December 29, 2014. (Id. ¶¶ 36-37).
After receiving this letter, Plouffe called Bayview and spoke to Collins again. (Id. ¶ 39). He sent Bayview his 2013 income tax return and again told them that the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare did not provide food stamp receipts. (Id.) Collins told Plouffe that Bayview and M & T would pay for his homeowners insurance policy, but that Plouffe would need to obtain one first. (Id.) Plouffe responded by stating he was disabled and could not obtain the policy. (Id.) Nonetheless, Plouffe was able to obtain the insurance policy after which he sent the bill for it to Bayview. (Id. ¶ 41).
In January 2015, Plouffe sent Bayview a letter from the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, confirming that Plouffe received food stamps. Plouffe resent the insurance information to Bayview. Bayview never responded to these submissions.However, a few weeks later, on February 10, 2015, Plouffe received a letter from Bayview. This letter offered Plouffe the option of a "short sale in lieu of deed." (Id. ¶ 45).5 Plouffe did not respond to this offer in any way.
Plouffe then sent several letters to Bayview, asking for the name of a supervisor and raising issues he had with them. (Id. ¶¶ 47-48). On February 18, 2015, Bayview sent another letter offering a "deed-in-lieu of transaction" for up to $10,000. (Id. ¶ 49). Plouffe did not respond to this offer in any way. Shortly after the offer, Bayview indicated in a letter that they were unable to contact Plouffe by phone and they would not respond to his letters. (Id. ¶ 50). This letter also included another application packet for Plouffe to complete. (Id.) Around this same time, Plouffe's homeowners insurance policy was cancelled. (Id. ¶ 51). After this, Bayview and Collins "arranged for the Bank own [sic] forced insurance program." (Id.)
On March 4, 2015, Bayview sent Plouffe a letter "representing a repayment schedule." (Id. ¶ 53). A few days prior, Plouffe had sent a letter to Bayview in which he asked why they never responded and requested details on the deed-in-lieu and the amount being offered. (Id. ¶ 52). After some time, Plouffe wrote a letter asking why Bayview was "ignoring his letters and requests for information and his request for a forbearance." (Id. ¶ 54).
In the Spring of 2015, "Plouffe was served with a foreclosure civil action by the Berks County Sheriffs." (Id. ¶ 55). In April and May of 2015, Bayview sent Plouffe letters advising him of another loan modification program. (Id. ¶ 56). Plouffe responded to these letters, but Bayview did not follow up with him. (Id.) After foreclosure proceedings began, Plouffe submitted another loan modification application and received another offer of a deed-in-lieu from Bayview. (Id. ¶¶ 56-58). Plouffe expressed his interest in the deed-in-lieu, but Bayview did not respond to that or to Plouffe's application. (Id.) In the letters discussed above, "it was repeatedly stated that Bayview was a debt collector for purposes of the FDCPA." (Id. ¶ 61).
On October 22, 2015, defendant Jean Pierre (an employee of Bayview) sent Plouffe a letter. (Id. ¶ 62). The letter included a proposed affidavit for Plouffe to sign. (Id.) This affidavit stated that there had been a mistake in Plouffe's prior loan modification agreement: Bayview—not M & T—was the actual "lender" of Plouffe's mortgage. (Id.) The loan modification agreement had listed M & T—not Bayview—as the actual lender. (Id.) This letter also stated...
To continue reading
Request your trial