Dauenhauer v. The Bank of New York Mellon

Summarized by Dean Langdon , DelCotto Law Group PLLC
11 years 10 months ago

Citation:

File 14a0275n.06; Docket No. 13-5810

Tag(s):

Ruling:

In an opinion designated as not for publication, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissing a complaint against Bank of New York Mellon, MERS and other defendants on claims for a) quieting title; b) fraudulent misrepresentation; c) violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act; d) violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; e) slander of title; and f) civil conspiracy. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the ruling below that the assignment of the note and mortgage to MERS was valid, allowing it to enforce them, and that assignment of the note and mortgage without recording an assignment did not affect their validity under Tennessee law. The Court of Appeals also held that the plaintiffs did not have standing to assert any violations of the pooling and servicing agreement for the trust holding the note.

Procedural context:

This action was filed by plaintiff/borrowers in Tennessee state court to stop a non-judicial foreclosure action. After removal to the federal District Court, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on all counts. Plaintiffs timely appealed.

Facts:

Plaintiffs sued Bank of New York Mellon, Bank of America, MERS, MERSCORP Holdings and ReconTrust Company seeking to stop a non-judicial foreclosure action. Affirming on all issues, the Sixth Circuit adopted the District Court's reasoning on each claim, as follows: a) the quiet title claim was properly dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to plead they had satisfied their obligations under the note; b) the fraudulent misrepresentation claim was properly dismissed because the complaint failed to allege any facts to support that representations were fraudulent or mistaken; c) dismissal of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claims was proper since it did not apply to deceptive foreclosure proceedings under state law; d) the FDCPA claim was property dismissed since none of the defendants fell within the definition of a "debt collector"; e) the slander of title claim was properly dismissed since the plaintiffs failed to plead the element of malice; and f) the civil conspiracy claim was properly dismissed once all other claims failed, since an underlying tort was required to establish the conspiracy.

Judge(s):

Suhrheinrich, Griffin and Kethledge.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!