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.

Morgan v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC

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

March 28, 2019

VALERIE D. MORGAN, Plaintiff,
v.
BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Robert E. Payne Senior United States District Judge.

         This matter is before the Court on DEFENDANT NVR MORTGAGE FINANCE, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 9); the MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 18) filed by Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC ("Bayview"), E*Trade Bank ("E*Trade"), and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. PMERS"); DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT (ECF No. 20); and Plaintiff Valerie D. Morgan's MOTION[S] TO AWARD PLAINTIFF FEDERAL & STATE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS, and DENY DEFENDANTS ANY/ALL FORMS OF RELIEF - PER 18 USC 3771 (d)(1) (ECF Nos. 28, 34, 36, 38, and 39). For the following reasons, the defendants' motions to dismiss (ECF Nos. 9, 18, and 20) will be granted, and Morgan's MOTION [S] TO AWARD PLAINTIFF FEDERAL & STATE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS, and DENY DEFENDANTS ANY/ALL FORMS OF RELIEF - PER 18 USC 3771 (d)(1) (ECF Nos. 28, 34, 36, 38, and 39) will be denied. But, because Morgan has recently retained counsel, the dismissal will be without prejudice.

         BACKGROUND

         Morgan, proceeding pro se, filed this action on June 21, 2018 against five defendants. See ECF No. 1. Morgan alleges that NVR Mortgage Finance Inc. ("NVR") is the original lender of her loan. Id. at 4.[1] NVR owned the original mortgage loan, but it sold her mortgage to Bank of America, N.A. ("Bank of America") over a decade ago. Morgan alleges that Bayview is the current servicer of her loan, that E*Trade is the current owner of the loan, and that MERS is the beneficiary of her loan. Id. at 4. It is not clear why Morgan named Bank of America as a defendant, see id. at 5, but she alleges that Bank of America was a prior servicer. Id. at 6.

         In the Complaint, Morgan alleges that she has been trying to get information from the defendants for over nine years to verify that her mortgage's chain of title is correct and to ensure that the party collecting payments has a legal right to collect her mortgage. Id. at 5. Morgan says that she has never been in default or submitted any late payments, but she acknowledges that she still must send in payments to avoid default. See id. at 6.

         The Complaint lacks logical flow, making it difficult to discern Morgan's legal claims and which claims apply to which defendants. Morgan labeled the Complaint as a "QUIET TITLE ACTION." See id. at 2. She insinuates that she did not know that her mortgage would be sold and securitized, although she recognizes that the defendants had a right to do so, and she alleges that the defendants engaged in fraud by selling her mortgage. See id. at 3-6. She also alleges that there is a "cloud" over her title because she thinks that she may have to defend her ownership against some unknown party at some unknown time in the future. Id. at 8. She further includes a conclusory litany of other claims without explanation as to how they apply to her case or which of the defendants she thinks violated which of the laws which she mentions, including: (1) a claim under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for alleged manipulation of the London Inter-bank Offered Rate ("LIBOR"); (2) racketeering under 18 U.S.C. § 1957; (3) money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956; (4) use of an "illegal currency" in a deal under Code of Virginia § 6.2-203; (5) fraud that can result in rescission of a contract under U.C.C. § 3-202; (6) an unfair or deceptive acts or practices claim under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) (the "FTCA"); (7) a trademark claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125; (8) an unfair or deceptive acts or practices claim promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; and (9) a securities claim under Section 17(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)). See generally id. She requests multiple remedies, which, in essence, ask the Court to nullify her mortgage, to hold that the defendants have no legal or equitable interest in the property, and to order the defendants to give her money.

         In response to the Complaint, each defendant filed a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). See DEFENDANT NVR MORTGAGE FINANCE, INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 9); MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 18); DEFENDANT BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT (ECF No. 20). Morgan also filed five separate documents titled MOTION TO AWARD PLAINTIFF FEDERAL & STATE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS, and DENY DEFENDANTS ANY/ALL FORMS OF RELIEF - PER 18 USC 3771 (d)(1). See ECF Nos. 28, 34, 36, 38, and 39. Her motions ask the Court to ignore the Defendants' arguments and to grant her relief.

         DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         In considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court accepts all well-pleaded allegations as true and views the Complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Philips v. Pitt Cty. Mem'l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009). But the Court does not need to accept the plaintiff s legal conclusions drawn from those facts. Id. The Court can take judicial notice of matters of public record, and it can consider documents attached to the complaint and motions to dismiss "so long as they are integral to the complaint and authentic." Id.

         Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" to "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). A complaint attacked by a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, but it does require "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. The complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. The plausibility standard requires "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully." Id.

         Courts construe pro se complaints liberally. As the Supreme Court has instructed, "[a] document filed pro se is to be liberally construed, and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (citations omitted); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(e) ("Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.").

         B. Morgan Pails To State A Claim for Quiet Title

         Morgan's complaint is styled as a "QUIET TITLE ACTION," see ECF No. 1 at 2. So, the Court ...


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.