Scalercio-Isenberg v. Goldman Sachs Mortg. Co.
| Docket Number | 21 Civ. 4124 (KPF) |
| Decision Date | 09 August 2022 |
| Parties | SHERRY SCALERCIO-ISENBERG, Plaintiff, v. GOLDMAN SACHS MORTGAGE COMPANY and MTGLQ INVESTORS LP, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Pro se Plaintiff Sherry Scalercio-Isenberg brings suit against Defendants Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company (“GSMC”) and MTGLQ Investors LP (“MTGLQ,” and together with GSMC, “Goldman Sachs”), asserting a variety of claims relating to Defendants' handling of Plaintiff's mortgage. Plaintiff asserts nine causes of action, the majority of which stem from Plaintiff's allegation that Defendants have inaccurately stated her mortgage balance. Defendants now move to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the reasons discussed in the remainder of this Opinion, the Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss.
BACKGROUND[1]
Plaintiff is a New Jersey resident whose home is located in Sparta, New Jersey. (Mortgage ¶ Q). Plaintiff's interest in her residence is encumbered by a mortgage loan, the lender of which was Quicken Loans, Inc., a non-party to this lawsuit. (Id. at ¶ D). Plaintiff obtained the Mortgage in November of 2010. (Id. at ¶ A). Under the Mortgage, Plaintiff is required to make certain “Periodic Payments,” which include amounts due on the principal and interest on the loan, as well as funds put towards an escrow account. (Id. at ¶ O; see also id., § 2).[2] The Mortgage also states: “[a]t origination or at any time during the term of the Loan, Lender may require that Community Association Dues, Fees, and Assessments, if any, be escrowed by Borrower, and such dues, fees and assessments shall be an Escrow Item.” (Id., § 3). Section 3 further notes that: “[i]f Borrower is obligated to pay Escrow Items directly, pursuant to a waiver, and Borrower fails to pay the amount due for an Escrow Item, Lender may pay such amount and Borrower shall then be obligated to repay to Lender any such amount.” (Id.).
The relevant timeframe for Plaintiff's allegations begins in 2019. Plaintiff alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (“MetLife”) owned her mortgage and that Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing (“Shellpoint”) serviced it from January 1, 2019, to March 31, 2019. (Am. Compl. 4 ¶ 1).[3] This arrangement is partially reflected by Plaintiff's payment of $3,131.19 to Shellpoint in March 2019. (Pl. Ex. 0).
Plaintiff alleges that, on or about April 1, 2019, MTGLQ, a Goldman Sachs entity, acquired the loan from MetLife. (Am. Compl. 4 ¶ 3). Plaintiff claims that she was “informally” made aware of this transfer of ownership by means of an email from Shellpoint dated April 1, 2019, in which Shellpoint requested verification of Plaintiff's mailing address and the last four digits of her social security number. (Id. at 4 ¶ 4; Pl. Ex. 1). Shellpoint's email to Plaintiff then stated: (Pl. Ex. 1).
After learning that her mortgage loan had been transferred to MTGLQ, Plaintiff became “concerned and alarmed” about the lack of formal notice given to her regarding the transfer of ownership of her loan. (Am. Compl. 4-5 ¶¶ 58). Between April and November of 2019, Plaintiff made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Goldman Sachs and MTGLQ to discuss her loan. (Id. at 56 ¶¶ 6-12). Plaintiff also visited the New York Attorney General's Office on two occasions to voice her concerns. (Id. at 5 ¶ 10).
On November 25, 2019, Plaintiff received a formal notice, dated November 22, 2019, alerting her that ownership of her loan had been transferred to Legacy Mortgage Asset Trust 2019-GS7. (Am. Compl. 5-6 ¶ 11; Pl. Ex. 8). The notice also stated that the mortgage servicer would continue to be Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”). (Pl. Ex. 8).[4] Though the notice appeared “legitimate” to Plaintiff at first, she alleges that she quickly spotted “inaccuracies” about the previous mortgage servicer in the notice, in addition to differences in the amount of money said to be due. (Am. Compl. 6 ¶ 11). Specifically, Plaintiff calls attention to the original principal balance on her loan, which the notice lists as $617,975.00 and which Plaintiff claims should have been $515,896.14. (Pl. Ex. 8). Plaintiff also alleges that SPS “demand[ed]” an immediate payment of over $75,000, the non-payment of which would result in the foreclosure of Plaintiff's residence. (Am. Compl. 6 ¶ 11).
According to Plaintiff, she and her husband were “suddenly being held hostage” by Goldman Sachs and SPS, who were using “extortion tactics” and “demanding a form of Ransom[] money[.]” (Id.).[5]
Plaintiff alleges that she made an appointment to discuss the status of her mortgage payments with Karen Seymour, then the General Counsel of Goldman Sachs, and further alleges that Seymour failed to appear for this meeting. (Am. Compl. 6 ¶ 12). By December 16, 2019, Plaintiff had grown “angry” about both the misrepresentations on her mortgage statements and Goldman Sachs's failures to discuss her concerns with her. (Id. at 6 ¶ 13). Plaintiff sent an additional email to Seymour on this date, copying also David Solomon, the CEO of Goldman Sachs. (Id. at 7 ¶ 14; Pl. Ex. 5).
On January 3, 2020, Plaintiff received a phone call from Frank Morreale, outside counsel for Goldman Sachs. (Am. Compl. 7 ¶ 15). During this phone call, Plaintiff reiterated her concerns about mortgage fraud, and Morreale stated that he would speak with Goldman Sachs's representatives and contact Plaintiff thereafter. (Id. at 7-8 ¶¶ 16-24). Plaintiff then sent Morreale an email on January 7, 2020, in which she stated that she had not received information about where to send her January 2020 mortgage payment. (Pl. Ex. 10).
One week later, on January 14, 2020, Plaintiff received a draft version of a Settlement Agreement from Morreale, on behalf of Goldman Sachs. (Am. Compl. 9 ¶ 27). After reviewing this draft document and making edits in blue pen, Plaintiff called Morreale to discuss her concerns further. (Id. at 9 ¶ 28). Eventually, after several conversations, Plaintiff and Morreale agreed on the “spirit and intent” of the contract, and Morreale added several “key” paragraphs to assuage specific concerns held by Plaintiff. (Id. at 9-10 ¶ 28).
The Settlement Agreement was signed by Plaintiff and her husband on January 15, 2020, and by a GSMC representative on January 21, 2020. (Pl. Ex. 14). “[W]ithout admitting any liability and solely to avoid litigation and to buy peace,” GSMC agreed to pay the total sum of $2,500.00 (the “Settlement Payment”) to Plaintiff and her husband within 30 days of the receipt of the settlement documents by Goldman Sachs's counsel. (Id. at ¶ 1). In consideration of this Settlement Payment, Plaintiff and her husband agreed to:
unconditionally, irrevocably, forever and fully release, acquit, and forever discharge GSMC and its servicers, predecessors, successors, assigns, parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, and related entities, and each of their respective present and former officers, employees, directors, shareholders, advisors, insurers, attorneys, representatives and agents ... of and from any and all claims, demands, actions, causes of action, suits, liens, debts, obligations, promises, agreements, costs, damages, liabilities, and judgments of any kind, nature, or amount whether in law or equity, whether known or unknown, anticipated or unanticipated, liquidated or unliquidated, relating to, arising out of, or in connection with the Loan, the Mortgage and the Property to the extent in any fashion arising from, or related to, events from the beginning of time up until, and through, the Effective Date (the “Released Claims”), including, without limitation, any and all Claims, and including, without limitation, any and all claimed or unclaimed compensatory damages, consequential damages, interest, costs, expenses and fees (including reasonable or actual attorneys' fees), that Releasors have, or may have, against the GSMC Releasees from the beginning of time up until and through the Effective Date.
In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff highlights two other sections of the Settlement Agreement that she believes to be relevant to her claims. The first is Section 8, which is entitled “Warranties and Representations” and which provides:
Each Party hereto warrants and represents that it has not assigned, transferred, conveyed, or purported to assign, transfer, or convey to any person or entity any right, claim, action, cause of action, suit (at law or in equity), defense, demand, debt, liability, account, or obligation herein released, or any part thereof, or which would, absent such assignment, transfer or conveyance, be subject to the releases set forth in this Agreement.
(Pl. Ex. 14 ¶ 8). The second provision to which Plaintiff points is Section 13, which is entitled “Further Assurances” and which provides:
Each Party agrees to do all acts and things and to make, execute, acknowledge and deliver such written documents, instructions and/or instruments in such form as shall from time to time be reasonably required to carry out the terms and provisions of this Agreement, including but not limited to, the execution, filing or recording of any reporting documents, affidavits, deeds or agreements. Each Party further agrees to give reasonable cooperation and assistance to the other Party in order to enable other the Party to secure the intended benefits of this Agreement.
(Id., ¶ 13).
Plaintiff claims that she had an “uneasy feeling” about the Settlement Agreement, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial