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.

Jimenez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division

July 26, 2016

CLOTILDE C. JIMENEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          CLAUDE M. HILTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Select Portfolio Servicing Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss.

         Plaintiff Clotilde Jimenez's Complaint is construed to allege that Plaintiff rescinded his subject mortgage loan under the Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq. ("TILA"), more than eight years after the loan closed, and that Defendants ignored his rescission by continuing to enforce their rights under the loan documents. Plaintiff claims he was entitled to TILA rescission because he recently learned that various unidentified financial institutions were somehow manipulating the United States currency system and the London Inter Bank Offer Rate ("LIBOR"). Plaintiff alleges neither how this scheme was carried out nor what role, if any, the Defendants played. Based on Defendant's refusal to honor Plaintiff's rescission notice, Plaintiff asserts three claims: (1) Larceny of Real Estate and Filing Fraudulent Mortgage Documents; (2) Remove Cloud of Title/Quiet Title; and (3) Request for Permanent Injunction.

         On February 28, 2007, Plaintiff executed an Adjustable Rate Note ("Note") for $348, 000 (the "Loan") in favor of Bear Stearns Residential Mortgage Corporation ("Bear Stearns"). Plaintiff secured the Note by executing a deed of trust ("Deed of Trust") concerning certain real property located at 117 Glacier Way, Stafford, VA (the "Property"). The Note was later endorsed in blank and securitized. Wells Fargo is the trustee of the trust that holds the Note, and the assignee for the Deed of Trust. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. ("SPS") is the servicer of the loan.

         On November 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In his bankruptcy schedules, Plaintiff stated that the Property was worth $311, 017.00 and that Loan's secured lien exceeded the Property's value. Plaintiff did not dispute that the Loan was secured by the Property. Plaintiff also represented that he had no claims concerning the Loan.

         On November 26, 2014, Wells Fargo moved for relief from the automatic stay. The Bankruptcy Court granted Wells Fargo's motion:

[T]he automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C Section 362 is modified to permit the movant and its successors and assigns to enforce the lien of its deed of trust as it pertains to the real property located at 117 Glacier Way, Stafford, VA . . . .

         Plaintiff appealed the Order Granting Relief from Stay based, in part, on the grounds that Defendants violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. 3771; committed mortgage fraud; and committed federal ''Misprision of Felony."[1] The District Court denied Plaintiff's appeal because Plaintiff offered "no grounds to show that the Bankruptcy's decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law" and because the Plaintiff received a discharge while the appeal was pending.

         Because Plaintiff s schedules stated that the Property was fully encumbered by secured claims; that Plaintiff did not dispute those secured claims; and that Plaintiff had no causes of action concerning the Loan, the Trustee abandoned the Property. Plaintiff received a discharge on February 18, 2015. His case was closed on April 3, 2014.

         On September 17, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document captioned, "Rescission of Mortgage Loan Due to 'LIBOR' Banking/Securities Fraud" ("Rescission Notice"). Plaintiff appears to invoke TILA to rescind the Note and Deed of Trust. The Bankruptcy Court refused to act on Plaintiff's Rescission Notice because his bankruptcy case closed.

         On May 16, 2016, Plaintiff commenced this action in the Circuit Court of Stafford County, Virginia. Lacking specific factual allegations, the Complaint generally complains that various law enforcement agencies should have arrested Defendants for engaging in unspecified criminal conduct. To the extent Plaintiff raises civil issues, it appears he alleges that Defendants wronged him by enforcing the Loan's lien after he filed his Rescission Notice in his bankruptcy case. Plaintiff asserts three claims: Larceny of Real Estate and Filing Fraudulent Mortgage Documents, Remove Cloud of Title/Quiet Title, and Request for Permanent Injunction.

         LEGAL STANDARD

         A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. See, e.g., Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999); District 28, United Mine Workers of Am., Inc. v. Wellmore Coal Corp., 609 F.2d 1083, 1085-86 (4th Cir. 1979). Generalized, unsupported assertions are insufficient to state a claim.

         A court should dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff fails to proffer "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A plaintiff's "obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. at 555. A claim will lack "facial plausibility" unless the plaintiff "plead[s] factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). A complaint must contain sufficient evidentiary facts to raise a plausible-as opposed to merely conceivable-inference that the Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680. Plaintiff must ...


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.