Best v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n

450 F.Supp.3d 606

Dawud J. BEST, Plaintiff,

v.FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.

Case No.: GJH-17-314

United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division.

Signed March 30, 2020

Jeffrey W. Styles, Washington Legal Group, LLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Jason Tola Kutcher, Syed Mohsin Reza, Troutman Sanders LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant Capital One, Nat'l Assoc.

Christine Nicole Johnson, Brock & Scott, PLLC, Rockville, MD, Syed Mohsin Reza, Jason Tola Kutcher, Troutman Sanders LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant Brock & Scott, PLLC.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

GEORGE J. HAZEL, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Dawud J. Best filed this action on February 2, 2017 against Defendants Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae"), Capital One, National Association ("Capital One") and Brock & Scott, PLLC ("B&S"), seeking damages for conduct surrounding attempts to collect on his mortgage debt. Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. , the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act ("MCDCA"), Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 14-201 et seq. , the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"), Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-101 et seq. , the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. , the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. , the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ("ECOA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq. , and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"), 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 60. No hearing is necessary. See Loc. Rule 105.6. (D. Md.). For the following reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted in part and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND¹

Plaintiff is the record owner of real property located at 5800 Carlyle Street, Cheverly, Maryland (the "Property"), where he has resided since January 1, 2008. ECF No. 68-2 ¶ 2; ECF No. 60-5 at 7.² On October 31, 2007, Plaintiff executed a promissory note (the "Note") with lender Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B. ("Chevy Chase"), and received a loan of $335,000 secured by a deed of trust (the "Deed of Trust") encumbering the Property. ECF No. 60-3 at 10, 12, 14, 16; ECF No. 60-5 at 2; ECF No. 60-6; ECF No. 60-7. The Deed of Trust was recorded in the Prince George's County land records. ECF No. 60-7. On September 20, 2012, Chevy Chase assigned the Deed of Trust to Defendant Capital One. ECF No. 60-8. The assignment was also recorded in the Prince George's County records. Id.

Defendant Fannie Mae is the owner of Plaintiff's Note while Capital One is the servicer. ECF No. 68-20 at 2–4. Defendants maintain that Capital One mailed Plaintiff a notice of the transfer of servicing rights for the loan from Chevy Chase to Capital One in July 2009, though the copy of the notice Defendants have provided is marked "Representation of Printed Document" and "Internet Reprint." ECF No. 60-9. At his deposition, Plaintiff testified that he was never officially informed that Capital One had become the servicer of his loan, though he acknowledged that he had received statements from Capital One and returned the payments requested and that he "might have seen on TV" that Chevy Chase "was now Capital One." ECF No. 60-3 at 14–15. Plaintiff's monthly payments were "about $3,407." ECF No. 68-2 ¶ 4.

The last payment Plaintiff made towards the loan was for the month of March 2010. ECF No. 60-5 at 5. In a sworn declaration, Plaintiff states that he stopped paying Capital One "after it failed to provide documentation that it qualified as the Noteholder as defined in my promissory note or as a holder of the note as defined under Maryland Code, Commercial Law Article, Section 1-201(21)." ECF No. 68-2 ¶ 6. On or about July 2, 2010, Plaintiff called Capital One to make a payment of $10,221 for April, May, and June 2010. Id. ¶ 8; see also ECF No. 60-16 at 2. The representative declined to accept the payment, however, claiming that Plaintiff was required to pay $14,381.14, which in addition to the $10,221 for the preceding three months included his July 2010 payment of $3,407 and $753.14 in late fees and other costs. ECF No. 68-2 ¶¶ 9–10, 12; ECF No. 60-16 at 2. Plaintiff believed that he only owed his normal monthly payments for April, May, June, and July and offered to pay that amount, which totaled $13,628, but the Capital One representative refused, insisting that he was required to pay the late fees as well. ECF No. 68-2 ¶¶ 11–14. Because Capital One had refused to accept the payment, Plaintiff believed that he had no obligation to continue making payments and that Capital One was not entitled to continue collecting interest, fees, and costs on the loan. ECF No. 60-16 at 2; see also ECF No. 60-3 at 23.

On August 20, 2010, law firm Samuel I. White, P.C. ("SIWPC") sent Plaintiff a letter stating that it had been instructed to initiate foreclosure proceedings on his loan and that "the creditor to whom the debt is owed is Capital One, N.A." ECF No. 60-10 at 2. The letter also informed Plaintiff that under the FDCPA, he was entitled to dispute the debt and request information about the loan within 30 days. Id. at 3. Over the next 15 months, Plaintiff sent three requests for information to SIWPC. Id. at 4–5. SIWPC responded with letters on September 17, 2010, July 19, 2011, and November 2, 2011, in which it provided information about the amount Plaintiff owed and confirmed that Chevy Chase was his original creditor. Id. at 4–10. The final letter noted that SIWPC had forwarded Plaintiff's most recent request to Capital One to address any remaining issues. Id. at 10.³

On October 23, 2012, substitute trustees appointed by Capital One initiated a foreclosure proceeding in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County. See Best v. Driscoll , No. 0959, 2015 WL 5933669, at *1 (Md. App. June 18, 2015). On February 21, 2013, Plaintiff moved to stay and dismiss the foreclosure, asserting that Capital One was not the holder of the note and therefore could not appoint substitute trustees, among other claims. Id. at *2–*3. At a hearing on May 3, 2013, the court found that a document introduced by defendants was the original Note bearing Plaintiff's signature, that it was in Capital One's possession, and that the trustees and Capital One had standing to foreclose. Id. at *5. Accordingly, the court denied Plaintiff's stay motion and ruled that the foreclosure sale could proceed. Id. at *6. The Court also dismissed as untimely counterclaims that Plaintiff had filed alleging breach of contract and violations of the MCDCA and MCPA. Id.⁴ The Maryland Court of Special Appeals found that the counterclaims were timely but affirmed the dismissal on June 28, 2015. Id. at *11.

Plaintiff then filed two lawsuits against SIWPC and Capital One in this Court. In the first action, filed on August 12, 2013, Plaintiff alleged that SIWPC violated the MCDCA by unlawfully threatening foreclosure and that both defendants violated RESPA by failing to act on requests he had sent with respect to his account. See Best v. Samuel I. White, P.C. , No. WDQ-13-2348, 2014 WL 2575771, at *1 (D. Md. June 6, 2014). The Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that Plaintiff's inquiries did not trigger duties under RESPA and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the MCDCA claim. Id. at *2–*3. In the second action, filed on October 24, 2013, Plaintiff alleged that SIWPC and Capital One violated the FDCPA and the MCDCA by misrepresenting their ability to foreclose within a certain time period. See Best v. Samuel I. White, P.C. , No. WDQ-13-3164, 2014 WL 2002448, at *1 (May 14, 2014). The Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that the communications Plaintiff raised had complied with Maryland law. Id. at *2.

On October 13, 2015, another law firm, Cohn, Goldberg & Deutsch, LLC, sent Plaintiff a letter informing him that his loan had been referred to the firm for legal action based on his default. ECF No. 68-4. The letter stated that Fannie Mae was the current owner of the Note and that Capital One was the servicer. Id. On November 24, 2015, Capital One sent Plaintiff a Notice of Intent to Foreclose that identified Fannie Mae as the "Secured Party" and Capital One as the servicer. ECF No. 68-5 at 3, 5. On February 2, 2016, Defendant B&S, which holds a Maryland collection agency license issued on August 1, 2017, ECF No. 60-12 at 2, sent Plaintiff a letter stating "this account has been placed with our office for foreclosure," ECF No. 60-11 at 2. The letter informed Plaintiff that $464,376.55 was due at that time and that "the creditor to whom the debt is owed is Capital One, N.A." Id. B&S also informed Plaintiff that within 30 days, he could request verification of the debt and that B&S would provide him "with the name and address of the original creditor, if different from the current creditor." Id.

On February 29, 2016, Capital One appointed attorneys from B&S as substitute trustees under the Deed of Trust. ECF No. 60-13. On March 4, 2016, Plaintiff responded to B&s's February 2 letter to dispute the debt and the "letter's inference of a supposed default." ECF No. 60-14 at 2. Plaintiff also asked B&S to verify the alleged debt and to send him "all evidence proving" that he was "personally liable for the debt," that "Capital One, N.A. is the creditor," and that "the debt is owed to Capital One, N.A." Id. On March 8, 2016, the substitute trustees filed a foreclosure action in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland. BSPLLC v. Best , No. CAEF16-07406 (Prince George's Cty. Cir. Ct.).⁵

B&S sent a letter to the Property on March 11, 2016 titled "Important Notice" and addressed "to all occupants" stating that a foreclosure action had been filed and that a sale of the Property "may occur at any time after 45 days from the date of this notice." ECF No. 60-15. On March 20, 2016, Plaintiff...