Savvidis v. McQuaid

SOPHIA SAVVIDIS, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD McQUAID, TOWN CLERK FOR THE CITY OF NORWALK,and COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:19-cv-1308 (CSH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

APRIL 13, 2021

RULING ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS

HAIGHT, Senior District Judge:

Pro se Plaintiff Sophia Savvidis ("Plaintiff" or "Savvidis") brings this action, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ("section 1983"), seeking damages and injunctive relief from Richard McQuaid, the Town Clerk of the City of Norwalk ("Defendant McQuaid" or "McQuaid") and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. ("Defendant CHL" or "CHL," and collectively with McQuaid, "Defendants"). Doc. 1 ("Compl.").

Previously, CHL filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Doc. 17. The Court granted that motion because it concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. See Savvidis v. McQuaid, No. 19 Civ. 1308 (CSH), 2020 WL 249027, at *6 (D. Conn. Jan. 16, 2020) ("Savvidis I"). Specifically, the Court determined that "the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars Plaintiff's action in this Court," and that, "to the extent the claims are not barred by Rooker-Feldman, they must nevertheless be dismissed" on the ground of claim preclusion. Id. Nonetheless, the Court permitted Plaintiff to amend her Complaint to cure its deficiencies because the Court recognized that "a pro se litigant should be afforded every reasonable opportunity to demonstrate that he [or she] has a valid claim." Id. at *7 (quoting Satchell v. Dilworth, 745 F.2d 781, 785 (2d Cir. 1984)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint. Doc. 21 ("Am. Compl."). Plaintiff's allegations regarding Defendants are similar to her original Complaint: that McQuaid violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution by "recording and maintaining false, misleading, and fraudulent records" from third parties in connection with Plaintiff's property located at 106B Comstock Hill Avenue, in Norwalk, Connecticut. Am. Compl. at 1-2 ¶ 1. She also claims that CHL failed to prevent such fraud. See id. at 8 ¶ 20.

McQuaid has moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Doc. 24 ("McQuaid's Mot."); Doc. 24-2 ("McQuaid's Mem."). CHL also has so moved. Doc. 25 ("CHL's Mot."); Doc. 25-1 ("CHL's Mem."). Plaintiff has not filed any opposition to Defendants' motions.¹ This Ruling resolves those motions.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Underlying Mortgage

The facts herein are taken from Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Defendants' Briefs.² The Savvidis family, of which Plaintiff Sophia Savvidis is a member, operates one of the largestdiners in Connecticut, located off of the Interstate 95 in Norwalk. Am. Compl. at 2 ¶ 2. Three of Plaintiff's relatives—Andreas, Alexandros, and Anastasios Savvidis—inherited the diner from their father. Id. at 2 ¶ 3. It also appears that they inherited three properties that are next to one another: 106A, 106B, and 106C Comstock Hill Avenue, id., which at one point had been one undivided property, id. at 5 ¶ 13. The only property at issue in the current lawsuit is 106B Comstock Hill Avenue (the "Property"), which belongs to Plaintiff. Id. at 1-2 ¶ 1.

On April 14, 2003, non-parties Athina Savvidis and Anastasios Savvidis executed a note ("Note") in favor of America's Wholesale Lender ("AWL") in exchange for a loan in the principal amount of $550,000.00 (the "Loan"). Doc. 25-2. As security for the Note, on April 14, 2003, non-parties Athina Savvidis and Anastasios Savvidis granted a mortgage on the Property to AWL and its successors and assigns (the "Mortgage"). Doc. 25-3. On April 25, 2003, AWL assigned the Mortgage to the Bank of New York as Trustee ("BONY"). Doc. 25-4.

On December 19, 2005, Athina Savvidis executed a quitclaim deed purporting to deed the Property to Athina Savvidis, Anastasios Savvidis, and Plaintiff, collectively. Doc. 25-6. According to CHL—and Plaintiff does not appear to dispute this—Plaintiff did not hold any ownership or other interest in the Property until the date of this deed. CHL's Mem. at 3.

B. State Court Foreclosure Action

Sometime thereafter, Athina and Anastasios Savvidis defaulted on their loan repayment obligations and failed to cure the default. Id. As a result, on September 26, 2006, BONY, as mortgagee of record, commenced a foreclosure action against them in the Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of Stamford, captioned Bank of New York as trustee for theCertificateholders v. Savvidis et al., FST-CV06-6000164-S (Conn. Super. Ct. 2006). Id.; see also Doc. 25-7 ("State Court Docket"). BONY also listed Plaintiff as a defendant in that lawsuit. State Court Docket at 1.

On March 26, 2007, the Superior Court defaulted all defendants for failing to plead. CHL's Mem. at 3. On that same date, the trial court granted BONY's motion for judgment of foreclosure by sale and set a sale date of June 2, 2007. Id. No defendant appealed that judgment. Id. However, the sale did not occur. Id. Rather, it appears that for almost thirteen years, the Parties have engaged, and continue to engage, in various motion practice in state court in connection with the foreclosure of the Property, including the filing of petitions for bankruptcy protection, motions to open the foreclosure judgment and extend the sale date, and multiple appeals to the Connecticut Appellate Court and the Connecticut Supreme Court. Id. at 3-4.

Meanwhile, CHL (or its successor Bank of America, N.A.) was the mortgage loan servicer until January 1, 2014. Id. at 4. At that point, the servicing of the loan was transferred to Nationstar Mortgage LLC. Id. Anastasios and Athina Savvidis were informed of that transfer. Doc. 25-9.

The Parties in the state court action continued to engage in motion practice, but on June 24, 2019, the Superior Court issued an order of ejectment. See State Court Docket at 9. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed another appeal regarding the foreclosure action, and on July 24, 2019, the Connecticut Appellate Court dismissed that appeal as frivolous:

The appeal is dismissed as frivolous and . . . Sophia Savvidis, is prohibited from filing any further appeals from any decision in docket number FST-CV06-6000164-S, unless she first files a motion for permission to appeal with the Appellate Court. . . . The Appellate Court Clerk is directed not to accept and to return any filings in violation of this order.

Doc. 25-8.

C. The Instant Lawsuit

1. Allegations Regarding the Mortgage

Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on July 23, 2019, and she has a different account of the events that have transpired in connection with her Property. Plaintiff claims that her Property has been "attacked by [a] foreclosure attempt by . . . third party junk collectors." Id. at 2 ¶ 2.

According to Plaintiff, the Savvidis family has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars on their mortgage over the years, after Andreas Savvidis entered into a loan modification with a bank. Id. at 3 ¶ 5; id. at 5 ¶ 13. The Savvidis family has now learned from various disclosures, however, that the parties to whom the family has been making payments were not actually entitled to those payments. Id. at 3 ¶ 5. Rather, there are "junk debt collectors" who have claimed that "neither . . . Andreas Savvidis nor the party he made a modification with, had any right to speak for the property," and Plaintiff alleges that the junk debt collectors found a title error stemming from when the Comstock Hill property was originally divided into three parcels—A, B, and C. Id. at 5 ¶ 13.

Plaintiff also claims that the junk debt collectors are relying on records that are erroneous and were supposed to be removed by October 12, 2012, under the National Mortgage Settlement. Id. at 3 ¶ 6.³ However, those records were not removed "and [are] the reason for the instant lawsuit." Id. According to Plaintiff, as part of that agreement, the debt on the Property was paid off. Id. at 3 ¶ 7. Accordingly, a debt collector cannot now "double dip and try to collect the sameamount again." Id. Yet, Plaintiff claims that the junk debt collector has now emptied out the Property and is actively trying to sell it. Id. at 4 ¶ 10.

2. Defendants' Actions

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant McQuaid has been "recording and maintaining false, misleading, and fraudulent records from third parties" in connection with Plaintiff's Property. Id. at 1-2 ¶ 1.

Plaintiff further claims that McQuaid's actions of making false recordings are hindering her from financing and selling her Property. Id. at 7 ¶ 17. According to Plaintiff, at some time after CHL offered her family a loan in April 2003, the title to the loan was transferred, though that transfer failed "ab initio"—i.e., from the beginning. Id. at 7 ¶ 18. Thereafter, false claimants to the loan "emerged" but allegedly lacked proof of the debt. Id. at 8 ¶ 19. The false claimants made untruthful statements under oath in an attempt to transfer the loan to third parties. Id. According to Plaintiff, CHL failed to prevent or stop the fraudulent activity. Id. at 8 ¶ 20. Meanwhile, according to Plaintiff, unknown parties have now recorded their own deed to Plaintiff's Property. Id. at 8 ¶ 22.

Plaintiff seeks damages from Defendants for the harm done to her and an injunction directing McQuaid to remove the fraudulent records from the City's rolls. Id. at 8-9 ¶¶ 23-24.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

As the Court explained in Savvidis I, a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), under which a case is properly dismissed "when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case." Nowak v. Ironworkers Local 6 Pension Fund, 81 F.3d 1182, 1187 (2d Cir. 1996). When addressing achallenge to subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), a court may look beyond the pleadings and accept any evidence. Indeed, both the moving and non-moving parties "may use affidavits and other...