POSKIN v. TD BANKNORTH, NA

• Decision Date: 11 September 2009
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 06-463.
• Citation: 687 F. Supp.2d 530
• Parties: Kenneth POSKIN, Finian Poskin, his wife also known as Poskin, Plaintiffs, v. TD BANKNORTH, N.A., formerly known as Banknorth, N.A., formerly known as Peoples Heritage Bank, N.A., and Coastal Financial Inc., t/d/b/a First Manufactured Loan, Randy R. McKinney, individually and in his capacity as an agent of Coastal Financial Inc.; David M. Doheny, individually and in his capacity as an agent of Coastal Financial Inc.; Linda Ambrose, individually and in her capacity as an agent of Coastal Financial Inc.; Leighton Cohen, individually and in his capacity as agent of Coastal Financial Inc.; and Anthony Salamone, individually and in his capacity as agent and/or owner of Coastal Financial Inc., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

687 F.Supp.2d 530

Kenneth POSKIN, Finian Poskin, his wife also known as Poskin, Plaintiffs, v. TD BANKNORTH, N.A., formerly known as Banknorth, N.A., formerly known as Peoples Heritage Bank, N.A., and Coastal Financial Inc., t/d/b/a First Manufactured Loan, Randy R. McKinney, individually and in his capacity as an agent of Coastal Financial Inc.; David M. Doheny, individually and in his capacity as an agent of Coastal Financial Inc.; Linda Ambrose, individually and in her capacity as an agent of Coastal Financial Inc.; Leighton Cohen, individually and in his capacity as agent of Coastal Financial Inc.; and Anthony Salamone, individually and in his capacity as agent and/or owner of Coastal Financial Inc., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 06-463.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

September 11, 2009.

John R. Jordan, Peter M. Suwak, Washington, PA, for Plaintiffs.

Douglas J. Smillie, Joseph S. D'Amico, Fitzpatrick Lentz & Bubba, Center Valley, PA, for Defendants.

ORDER

CONTI, District Judge.

AND NOW, this 11th day of September, 2009, upon consideration of the parties' arguments and supporting documents, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 70) filed by defendant TD Banknorth, N.A. is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of defendant TD Banknorth, N.A, and against Finian Poskin with respect to the claims set forth in count V, count VIII, and under 15 U.S.C. ? 1679b(a)(1)(B)(ii) and ? 1679 b(a)(2)(B)(ii) in count I. Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of defendant TD Banknorth, N.A. and against plaintiffs Kenneth Poskin and Finian Poskin with respect to the claims set forth in count II, count III, and count IX. The motion is DENIED in all other respects.

Judgment is entered in favor of defendant TD Banknorth, N.A. and against plaintiff Finian Poskin respect to the claims set forth in count V, count VIII, and under 15 U.S.C. ? 1679b(a)(1)(B)(ii) and ? 1679 b(a)(2)(B)(ii) in count I. Judgment is entered in favor of defendant TD Banknorth, N.A. and against plaintiffs Kenneth Poskin and Finian Poskin with respect to the claims set forth in count II, count III, and count IX.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this memorandum opinion, the Court considers the motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 70), filed by defendant TD Banknorth, N.A. ("defendant" or "Banknorth") with respect to the seven claims asserted against defendant by plaintiffs Kenneth Poskin and Finian Poskin ("plaintiffs" or "Poskins") and the unjust enrichment counterclaim asserted against plaintiffs by defendant. After considering the Combined Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Doc. No. 81)¹ and the parties' respective submissions, the court will grant defendant's motion for summary judgment with respect to Finian Poskin's claims asserted in count V (violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law), count VIII (breach of fiduciary duty or duty of good faith and fair dealing), and under 15 U.S.C. ?? 1679b(a)(1)(B)(ii) and 1679b(a)(2)(B)(ii) in count I (violation of the Federal Truth in Lending Act). The court will also grant the motion for summary judgment with respect to both plaintiffs' claims in count II (violation of the Federal Truth in Lending Act), count III (violation of the Federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act), and count IX (violation of state usury laws). The court denies summary judgment with respect to Finian Poskin's claims for violation of 15 U.S.C. ? 1679b(a)(4) in count I and with respect to all defendant's other arguments, including its request for summary judgment on the unjust enrichment counterclaim.²

Factual Background

Finian Poskin and Kenneth Poskin were married in May 2001 and have divorced since the initiation of this action. (Def.'s S.F. ?? 2-3). In April 2001, Kenneth Poskin purchased a mobile home with money he obtained through a loan with Hudson United Bank ("Hudson United"). (Def.'s S.F. ? 5; Appendix of Exhibits to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment ("Def.'s App'x") (Doc. No. 70), Ex. D at 10-16.) Plaintiffs wanted to refinance the existing Hudson United loan, pay off credit cards, and obtain financing to relocate the mobile home. (Def.'s S.F. ? 8.) Finian Poskin contacted Coastal Financial Inc. ("Coastal") in response to a solicitation she received in the mail regarding loan financing. (Def.'s S.F. ? 7.) Prior to signing a loan with Coastal, Finian Poskin spoke with a Coastal representative, Randy McKinney, over the phone regarding plaintiffs' financial standing. (Def.'s App'x, Ex. D at 34-35.) According to plaintiffs, Finian Poskin disclosed the unemployment and mental health status of her husband and her during one of the phone conversations with the Coastal representative. (Pl.'s S.F. ? 18.) In May 2001, both Finian Poskin and Kenneth Poskin suffered from bipolar mental disability, and Kenneth Poskin was receiving Social Security benefits for the disorder. (Def.'s S.F. ? 6.)

On September 6, 2001, Finian Poskin and Kenneth Poskin met Randy McKinney at the Washington County Airport to finalize the execution of the loan. (Def.'s S.F. ? 11; Def.'s App'x, Ex. D at 36-37.) Kenneth Poskin signed several documents throughout the course of this meeting. (Def.'s S.F. ? 12.) According to plaintiffs, the documents Kenneth Poskin signed were blank. (Def.'s S.F. ? 14.) Finian Poskin denies signing any loan documents, and none of the documents refer to Finian Poskin as a co-borrower. (Def.'s S.F. ? 16; Plaintiff's Reply Appendix to Motion for Summary Judgment ("Pl.'s App'x") (Doc. No. 75), Ex. C at 77.)

Before Kenneth Poskin executed the Coastal loan, the Poskins purchased a 5.9-acre lot in Deemston Borough of Washington County, Pennsylvania for $4,000.00. (Def.'s App'x, Ex. B at 26.) The purported signature of Finian Poskin appears on a deed dated September 6, 2001, transferring ownership of the 5.9-acre parcel of land from "FINIAN CROWLEY and KENNETH W. POSKINS" to "KENNETH W. POSKINS." (Def.'s App'x, Ex. G.) Kenneth Poskin's mobile home was the collateral Coastal used for the loan. (Def.'s S.F. ? 15.)

Defendant was previously known as Peoples Heritage Bank, N.A. ("Peoples Heritage"). (Def.'s S.F. ? 4.) Defendant's mailing address was in Maine. (See Def.'s App'x, Exs. F, J, P.) After the execution of the September 6, 2001 loan, Coastal assigned the Poskins' loan to Peoples Heritage. (Def.'s S.F. ? 20.) Until defendant discovered Coastal sold fraudulent loans to defendant, Coastal was defendant's sole mobile home loan broker. (Def.'s S.F. ? 30.) In March 1998, defendant and Coastal entered into a manufactured home direct loan correspondent purchase agreement. (Def.'s App'x, Ex. H.) Tom Prowdy, defendant's vice president of consumer lending, had a previous relationship with Anthony Salamone, the owner of Coastal, and Tom Prowdy recommended to defendant that it offer mobile home loans. (Pl.'s App'x, Ex. E at 8-11; Pl.'s App'x, Ex. F at 10.) Coastal and defendant had a relationship in which Coastal submitted loan applications to defendant, and defendant funded the loans. (Pl.'s App'x, Ex. D at 20, 27-29.) Defendant was not under contract or obligation to purchase Coastal loans. (Def.'s S.F. ?? 27-28.) Thomas Hogan, a department manager of defendant who set up the business arrangement with Coastal, indicated that defendant turned down loan applications from Coastal, but he could not indicate how many of Coastal's loan applications were rejected. (Pl.'s App'x, Ex. E at 14-15.) The agreement between the parties provided: "Status of Seller. Nothing as making Coastal a joint venture, partner, representative, employee or agent of defendant . . . .'" (Def.'s S.F. ? 23; Def.'s App'x, Ex. H at 4.)

Defendant and Coastal shared an "operating account," which was a checking account into which defendant could deposit funds and from which Coastal could withdraw funds. (Pl.'s App'x, Ex. E at 18.) Coastal disbursed the funds from the operating account to the borrower's creditors. (Id. at 100; Pl.'s App'x, Ex. E at 14-15.) Coastal received remuneration for obtaining the loan and preparing loan documentation. (Pl.'s App'x, Ex. F at 9.) The payment came from a reserve fund set up by defendant. (Id.)

Defendant first started having trouble with Coastal in the early 2000s. (Pl.'s App'x, Ex. D at 22.) Defendant ceased the relationship with Coastal after learning Coastal placed false information on loan applications and that Coastal had assigned fraudulent mobile home loans to Banknorth. (Id. at 40-41; Def.'s S.F. ? 30.) The relationship ended in September 2002. (Pl.'s App'x, Ex. E at 9.) Catherine Morton, manager of defendant's collection department, was contacted by a borrower who explained that the borrower signed a loan application from Coastal, but the loan was not for the purpose of purchasing a mobile home. (Pl.'s App'x, Ex. D at 23-24.) The loan application, however, reflected that the loan was for mobile home purchase. (Id.)

With respect to Poskins' loan, one or more employees of defendant reviewed and approved that loan in accordance with defendant's policy. (Pl.'s S.F. ? 5.) Defendant's loan officer handling the review and approval of Poskins' loan did a credit review and debt-to-income ratio analysis of Kenneth Poskin. (Id.) The loan officer used the Coastal documentation of Poskins' loan to supply the information necessary to perform the credit review and debt-to-income ratio analysis of Kenneth Poskin. (Pl.'s App'x, Ex. F at 20-28.)

In performing these tasks, however, it is not clear whether defendant independently verified any information contained in Poskins' loan application. The application indicated that Kenneth Poskin was employed by Ambridge Steel, and had been so employed for fifteen years, and was making $1,600.01 per month. (Pl.'s App'x, Ex. D. at 126; Pl.'s App'x, Ex. B.) His credit report, however, stated he was self-employed and retired. (Id.; Pl.'s App'x, Ex. F at 36.) Catherine Morton testified at her...