Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Matlock v. Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Corp.

United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division

May 29, 2019

RICKY MATLOCK, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

          NEWBERN MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

          MEMORADUM

          WILLIAM L. CAMPBELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Pending before the Court is the Renewed Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants RoundPoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation (“RoundPoint”) and Embrace Home Loans, Inc. (“Embrace”) (Doc. No. 36), and the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant LoanCare, LLC (“LoanCare”). (Doc. No. 38). Plaintiffs filed Responses in Opposition (Doc. Nos. 42, 45) and Defendant LoanCare filed a Reply. (Doc. No. 47). For the reasons discussed below, the Renewed Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants RoundPoint and Embrace is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part, and Defendant LoanCare's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs are borrowers on a federally related mortgage loan. (Doc. No. 33 ¶ 8). Plaintiffs allege Defendants RoundPoint, Embrace, and LoanCare were all loan servicers for their home mortgage loan at the time relating to the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint. (Id. ¶¶ 5-7). This lawsuit arises from Defendants' servicing of Plaintiffs' mortgage loan escrow account in connection with their home mortgage loan. (Id. ¶ 1). Plaintiffs claim Defendants violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605(g), (“RESPA”) by failing to timely pay the insurance premium for their mortgaged property from their funded escrow account when the policy became due and, as a result, Plaintiffs suffered damages. (Id. ¶¶ 9-15, 24).

         On January 16, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants RoundPoint and Embrace alleging violations of Sections 2605(g) and 2605(e)(1)(A) of RESPA. (Doc. No. 1 ¶¶ 23-24). On March 12, 2018, RoundPoint and Embrace moved to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 13). On September 7, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, adding Loancare as a defendant. (Doc. No. 33). On September 17, 2018, RoundPoint and Embrace filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, reasserting their arguments from their first Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 36). On October 9, 2018, Loancare moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 38).

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), permits dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For purposes of a motion to dismiss, a court must take all of the factual allegations in the complaint as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Id. at 678. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads facts that allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id. In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the Court construes the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accepts its allegations as true, and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007). Thus, dismissal is appropriate only if “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Guzman v. U.S. Dep't of Children's Servs., 679 F.3d 425, 429 (6th Cir. 2012).

         III. ANALYSIS

         Defendants RoundPoint and Embrace argue Plaintiffs' claims against them should be dismissed for failure to state a claim because there is no supportable allegation that they were in possession of information in order to pay Plaintiffs' renewal insurance premium. (Doc. No. 14 at 1). Defendant Loancare argues dismissal is appropriate because “[n]owhere in the Complaint are there any factual allegations or claims against [it]…” (Doc. No. 38-1 at 3). Plaintiffs argue dismissal is unwarranted because the Amended Complaint adequately alleges that Defendants failed to pay insurance premiums in violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2605(g). (Doc. Nos. 23, 45).

         A. Defendants RoundPoint and Embrace

         1. 12 U.S.C. § 2605(g)

         Plaintiffs allege Defendants violated section 2605(g) of RESPA by failing to pay timely the insurance premium for their mortgaged property from their funded escrow account when the policy became due. (Doc. No. 33 ¶ 24). Section 2605(g) of RESPA provides:

If the terms of any federally related mortgage loan require the borrower to make payments to the servicer of the loan for deposit into an escrow account for the purpose of assuring payment of taxes, insurance premiums, and other charges with respect to the property, the servicer shall make payments from the escrow account for such taxes, ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.