Kevin Betskoff, Sr. v. Bank of America National Association, No. 13-1352 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1352 KEVIN C. BETSKOFF, SR., on behalf of himself, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:12-cv-01998-CCB) Submitted: August 20, 2013 Decided: August 26, 2013 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin C. Betskoff, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Mark W. Kinghorn, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina; Craig Robert Haughton, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin C. Betskoff, Sr., appeals the district court s orders declining to remand to Maryland state court his suit against Bank of America, dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim, and denying his motion to reconsider. Given that Betskoff s complaint We affirm. established both diversity and federal question jurisdiction, the district court properly denied Betskoff s motion to remand the case to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), (b) (2006); Francis v. Allstate Ins. Co., 709 F.3d 362, 366-67 (4th Cir. 2013). Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in exercising supplemental jurisdiction over his closely associated state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (2006); Crosby v. City of Gastonia, 635 F.3d 634, 644 (4th Cir. 2011). We also conclude that the district court properly granted Bank of America s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. As the district court observed, Betskoff s attempts to assert claims under the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 14-201 to 14-204 (LexisNexis 2005), the Maryland Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 13-101 to 13-501 (LexisNexis 2005 & Supp. 2012), and the Truth In Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1666h(a) (2006), must each fail because consumer the credit statutory schemes transactions; they 2 in do question not protect provide only causes of action relating entities. 2005); to credit transactions between corporate See Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 14-201(c) (LexisNexis Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 13-101(c)-(d), 13-303 (LexisNexis Supp. 2012); 15 U.S.C. §§ 1603(1), 1666h(a) (2006). By Betskoff s own representation, the bank account involved in his suit is a corporate account belonging to a limited liability company, and the debt that was offset by Bank of America had accrued on a credit card associated with that corporate account. The three statutory schemes that he attempts to invoke are therefore inapplicable to his circumstances. As for Betskoff s state law conversion claim, we recognize that a defendant may commit conversion even if acting in good faith and without any consciousness of wrongdoing. Nickens v. Mount Vernon Realty Group, LLC, 54 A.3d 742, 757 (Md. 2012) (citation omitted). Yet Betskoff s claim must fail because Maryland law established that money, as an intangible, is not subject to a claim for conversion unless a plaintiff can allege that the defendant identifiable funds. converted specific segregated or Allied Inv. Corp. v. Jasen, 731 A.2d 957, 966 (Md. 1999); see also Darcars Motors of Silver Spring, Inc. v. Borzym, 841 A.2d 828, 833 n.3 (Md. 2004). Because Betskoff s funds were commingled with others not only when he deposited them into a third party s account but also when Bank of America used the account funds to offset the credit card delinquency, 3 the cash los[t] Maryland law, it identity necessary its no specific longer for identity retained such that, discrete, interests Betskoff s the in redressed under a theory of conversion. under unitary it to be Allied Inv. Corp., 731 A.2d at 967; Lasater v. Guttmann, 5 A.3d 79, 88 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2010). Finally, Betskoff s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is also doomed, as Bank of America would not be liable even if it did what the complaint alleges: It would not be extreme and outrageous for Bank of America to offset a debt associated with a bank account with funds that were deposited in that account, especially as Betskoff has admitted that Bank of America did not know the true source of the funds. See Manikhi v. Mass Transit Admin., 758 A.2d 95, 113 (Md. 2000) (discussing elements). Accordingly, proceed in judgment. legal before forma although pauperis, we we grant affirm Betskoff the leave district to court s We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are and adequately argument presented will not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

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.