Peter Yakowicz v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, No. 13-1597 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil Case - Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. District court's dismissal for failure to state a claim under RESPA or for breach of contract is summarily affirmed. Motions to supplement the record are denied.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 13-1597 ___________________________ Peter Yakowicz; Susan Yakowicz lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; The Bank of New York Mellon, formerly known as The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2002-6, Assignee of Mortgage lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis ____________ Submitted: January 7, 2014 Filed: January 13, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before MURPHY, SMITH, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Peter and Susan Yakowicz brought the instant suit claiming breach of contract and violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. ยง 2605(c), (e)(2), arising out of defendants denials of their mortgage-loan modification applications and subsequent foreclosure on their home. The district court1 granted defendants motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and this appeal followed. On appeal, the Yakowiczes have filed two pro se motions to supplement the record. After reviewing the record below and the parties arguments on appeal, we deny the motions to supplement the record, because appellants fail to demonstrate that the new evidence was actually unavailable before the district court decided the case. See Bell v. Pfizer, Inc., 716 F.3d 1087, 1092 (8th Cir. 2013). Further, upon our careful de novo review, see Butler v. Bank of Am., N.A., 690 F.3d 959, 961 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review), we agree with the district court that appellants failed to state a claim for a RESPA violation or for breach of contract, see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state claim plausible on its face); Park Nicollet Clinic v. Hamann, 808 N.W.2d 828, 833 (Minn. 2011) (elements of breach-of-contract claim under Minnesota law). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ 1 The Honorable Donovan W. Frank, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
