Moisiuc et al v. Argent Mortgage Company LLC et al, No. 4:2018cv00383 - Document 55 (S.D. Tex. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER granting 19 Motion for Judgment; granting 22 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. (Signed by Judge Alfred H Bennett) Parties notified.(gclair, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Moisiuc et al v. Argent Mortgage Company LLC et al Doc. 55 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED UN ITED STA TES D ISTRICT C OU RT SO U TH ERN D ISTRICT O F TEX A S March 25, 2019 David J. Bradley, Clerk H OU STO N DIV ISION STEFAN M OISIUC,etal, Plaintiffs, VS. CIV IL A CTIO N N O .4:18-CV -383 ARGEN T M O RTG A GE CO M PA N Y LLC ,et al, Defendants. O R D ER Before the Courtare Defendants'M otion for Judgmenton the Pleadings (Doc.//19), Plaintiffs'Response(Doc.//27),Defendants'M otionto Dismiss(Doc.//22)(togetherwith Doc. //19,theûûM otions''),Plaintiffs'Response(Doc.#29),andDefendants'Reply(Doc.//33).Having reviewedtheparties'argumentsand applicablelegalauthority,theCourtgrantstheM otions. 1. Background Thisisa m ortgage foreclosure dispute. OnJuly8,2004,PlaintiffsexecutedanAdjustable RateNote(the1iNote'')andDeedofTrustwithArgentM ortgageCompany,LLC (içArgenf').See Doc.//22,Ex.A and Doc.//11,Ex.1,respectively.l Subsequently, on O ctober 15,2012,the N ote 1The Courtm ay consider the copy of the N ote attached to the M otions undera FederalRule of CivilProcedure 12 analysis because the N ote is centralto Plaintiffs'claim sconcerning m ortgage loan docum ents,and Plaintiffs do notcontestthe authenticity of the copy. See,e.g.,Doc.//11 at ! 12 (tû-l-heNoteand Deed ofTrusttogetherarehenceforth the llaoan'orElsoan Documents'''l' 5 KaneEnterprisesv.MacGregor(USA)Inc.,322 F.3d 371,374 (5th Cir.2003)(tûthecoul'tmay review the docum ents attached to the m otion to dism iss ...,w here the com plaintrefers to the documentsandtheyarecentraltotheclaim.''). Dockets.Justia.com and Deed ofTrustwereassigned (the ûkAssignmenf')from Argentto W ellsFargo Bank,N.A. (tsW ellsFargo'') though PlaintiffsallegethattheAssignmentisaforgery.SeeDoc.#11,Ex.7' , id at!33. Specitically, Plaintiffs allege that Tanyia Hill, the itpurported'' signatory of the A ssignm ent,did notsign oraffix hersignature to the A ssignm entand thatthe signature above her signatureblockwaslssignedoraffixed by someoneelse gwithoutltheknowledgeorauthority of TanyiaHi11.''1d.at!33.lnsupportoftheirforgeryallegation,PlaintiffsurgetheCourttovisually ComparefsnumerousdifferingnotarizedsignaturesOfTanyiaHi11.''1d.at!34. ,Doc.#11,Ex.8.2 ln response to an attem ptto foreclose by W ells Fargo and Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC,Plaintiffsassertfour(4)claimsbasedontheallegedforgery: QuietTitle; * V iolation ofSection 12.002 ofthe TexasC ivilPractice and Rem ediesCode; * Violation oftheTexasDebtCollection Act(Tex.Fin.Code Arm.jj392.301,et seq.(W estSupp.2019)). ,and @ Violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Tex.Fin.Code Ann. j392.404). Id at!!55--61and 72-94.Additionally,PlaintiffsseekadeclarationunderTexasandfederal1aw concerning the legaleffectofthe alleged forgery on Ctplaintiffs'and D efendants'rights and duties incomzectionwith''theNoteandDeedofTrust.1d.at!!47-54. 2 ln response to Plaintiffs' Com bined M otion for Leave to Conduct Targeted Discovery on Plaintiffs'Forgery Claim (Doc.//13),the Courtheld a telephonic hearing on April20,2018, w herein the Courtperm itted Plaintiffs to conduct lim ited discovery regarding the em ploym ent history of Tanyia H ill and any know ledge she m ight have had about the A ssignm ent. Subsequently,the C ourtheld that Bank of A m erica,N .A .- Hill's form er em ployer--com plied with the Court's April20,2018 discovery instructions. See Doc.//42. Notably,following the lim ited discovery regarding the alleged forgery,Plaintiffs never soughtleave to am end theirFirst Am ended Com plaint or otherw ise notitied the Court of any additional facts supporting their forgery allegations. Separately,Plaintiffs assertthatW ells Fargo violated Section 1641(g)ofthe Truth in LendingAct(15U.S.C.jj 1601,etseq.)byfailingtonotifyPlaintiffswhentheNoteandDeedof Trustwereassigned. 1d.at!!35-46.Finally,Plaintiffsalso assertapromissoryestoppelclaim based on an oral conversation that occurred in Septem ber 2011 regarding the m odification of Cûcertainmaterialterms''oftheNoteand DeedofTrust.1d.at!!62-71.Accordingto Plaintiffs, BankofAmerica,N.A.tûtBar1kofAmerica'')hadorallypromised Plaintiffsthatitwouldmodify thetermsoftheN ote and Deed ofTrustifPlaintiffssubmitted certain documents. 1d.Plaintiffs allege thatthey subm itted those docum ents by N ovem ber 9,2011,but Bank of A m erica never madethemodifications.1d. N ow ,through the M otions,Defendants m ove to dism iss Plaintiffs'claim s under Federal RulesofCivilProcedure 12(b)(6)and 12(c).$1A Rule12(c)motionmay disposeofacasewhen therearenodisputedmaterialfactsandthecoul' tcanrenderajudgmentonthemeritsbasedonthe substanceofthepleadingsandanyjudiciallynoticed facts.''Linicomnv.Hill,902F.3d529,533 (5thCir.2018)(internalcitationomitted).Itisunclearfrom theparties'briefingwhetherthereare disputed facts.A ccordingly,outofan abundanceofcaution,the Courtwillproceed by analyzing Plaintiffs'claimsunderthe12(b)(6)standard. II. LegalStandard a. FederalRuleofCivilProcedure12(b)(6) TosurviveaRule 12(b)(6)motiontodismiss,acomplaintneedonlyallegefactssufficient to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face and need not contain detailed factual allegations.Littellv.Houstonlndep.Sch.Dist.,894F.3d616,622(5thCir.2018)(citingAshcro. jt v.Iqbal,129S.Ct.1937(2009)andBellAtl.Corp.v.Twombly,127S.Ct.1955(2007)).E(A claim has facialplausibility when the plaintiffpleads factual content thatallow s the courtto draw the reasonable infertnce thatthe defendant is liable for the miscondud alleged. Significantly,a com plaintm ay proceed even ifrecovery isvery remote and unlikely,so long asthe alleged facts raise arightto reliefabovethe speculativelevel.'' Id (internalcitationsomitted). lsDismissal underRule 12(b)(6)based on statute oflimitationsisproperonly whereitisevidentfrom the com plaintthatthe action isbarred and the com plaintfailsto raise som e basisfortolling. ltisw ell established thatthelim itationsperiod runsfrom the mom entaplaintiff sclaim accrues.'' United Statesv.fuminantGeneration Co.,L.L.C.,905 F.3d 874,880 (5th Cir.2018)(internalcitations omitted). b. Forgeryand FederalRuleofCivilProcedure9(b) Applying Texaslaw,the Fifth Circuithasheld thatCtadocum entisforged ifitissigned by onewhopurportstoactasanother.''Bynanev.BankofNew YorkMellonforCWMBS,Inc.AssetBackedCertl hcatesSeries2006-24,866F.3d351,360(5thCir.2017)(citing Vazquezv.Deutsche BankNat.Tr.Co.,N A.,441S.W .3d783,787-88(Tex.App. Houston(1stDist.l2014,nopet.)). H owever,the allegation offorgery m ustm eetthe heightened pleading standard ofFederalRule of CivilProcedure9(b). Id.(holding thata forgery allegation wasinsufficiently pleaded when its only supportcame from an exhibitvisually comparing signatures). Rule 9(b)çtrequiresthat gplaintiffjstatewith particularitythecircumstancesconstitutingthefraud.Putsimply,Rule9(b) requiresthe w ho,w hat,w hen,w here,and how to be laid out.'' Shandong Yinguang Chem .Indus. JointStockCo.,Ltd v.Potter,607F.3d 1029,1032(5thCir.2010)(internalcitationsomitted). c. Statute ofL im itations ddclaimsgassertedlunderj 1641(g)goftheTruthin LendingActlaresubjecttoaoneyear statute of lim itations w hich runs from the end of the 30 days period after the date of an assignm ent.'' Benitez v.Am .'s Wholesale Lender,CIV .A .N o.11-14-953,2014 W L 3388650,at 4 *2(S.D.Tex.July9,2014)(eiting 15U.S.C.j 1640(e));seealso Williamsv.CountrywideHome Loans,lnc.,504F.Supp.2d 176,186(S.D.Tex.2007),affd,269Fed.Appx.523(5thCir.2008). U nder Texas law ,tithe statute oflim itations forprom issory estoppelclaim s is four years. Huntonv.Guardian L# Ins.Co.ofAm.,243F.Supp.2d 686,713n.46 (S.D.Tex.2002),aftnd, 71Fed.Appx.441(5th Cir.2003). Furthermore,lsthe latesta causeofaction fol'promissoxy estoppelcould accrue is w hen the prom isor breaches his prom ise.'' ld 111. A nalysis a. Plaintiffs' forgery allegations fail to m eet the heightened pleading standard ofFederalRuleofCivilProcedure9(b). A s the only supportfortheirallegation thatthe A ssignm entw asnotsigned by Tanyia Hill (orbysomeonewiththeknowledgeorauthorityofHil1),PlaintiffspointtheCourttoexhibitswith dsnumerous differing notarized signatures ofTanyia Hill.'' Doc.//11 at!34. Additionally, Plaintiffslay outgeneralansw ersto dtthew ho,w hat,w hen,w here,and how ''requirem entsofRule 9(b). Doc.#29 atl0-11. However,afterconsidering almostidenticalforgery allegations,the Fifth Circuitheld thatthe allegationswere insufficientunder FederalRule 9(b)'sheightened pleading standard. Bynane,866 F.3d at360 (Plaintiffs(sconclusory allegation thatJohnson's signaturewasforged (because itlooksdifferentthan hersignatureon an unzelated assignment) fails to m eet the heightened pleading standard''because it lacks any facts relating to who perpetrated the alleged forgery orhow,when,and where the alleged forgery was executed). Sim ilarly,here,Plaintiffs failto plead any particular factsrelating to the w ho,w hat,when,where, and how ofthealleged forgery. Asaresult(and astheFifth Circuitheld in Bynane),Plaintiffs lackstandingtoasserttheirclaim sbased on forgery allegations,includingtheirquiettitle,Section 12.002,Texas Debt Collection A ct,and Texas D eceptive Trade Practices A ct claim s and their requestforadeclarationoflegalrights.Doc.//11at!!47--61and72-94. 5 Plaintiffshave had ample tim e--over 13 months- to state plausible forgery allegations with som e particularity. A fterthe action w as rem oved to this Court,Plaintiffhad an opportunity to bolstertheirallegationswhen they am ended theirOriginalCom plaint.See Doe.: //11. ln fad, the Courtperm itted discovery lim ited to the allegations,but even then,Plaintiffs never sought leave to am end theirFirstA m ended Com plaintor otherw ise notified the Courtofany additional facts supporting their forgery allegations. ItisevidentthatPlaintiffshave no basisto asserttheir forgery claim s. Accordingly, because Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts supporting their forgery allegations sufficient to state claim s for reliefthatare plausible on their face and have failed to state w ith particularity the circum stances surrounding the alleged forgery,the C ourt grants the M otions as to Plaintiffs' quiet title, Section 12.002, Texas D ebt Collection Act, and Texas D eceptive Trade PracticesA ctclaim sand theirrequestfora declaration ofrights. b. Plaintiffs' claims asserted under Section 1641(g) of the Truth in L ending Actare tim e-barred. Claims asserted under Section 1641(g) are in effect subjectto a l3-month statute of lim itations. Benitez,2014 W L 3388650,at *2. Here,according to Plaintiffs'ow n exhibit,the Assignmentoccurred on October 15,2012. See Doc.//11,Ex.7.Therefore,Plaintiffshad until November15,2013,to asserttheirSection 1641(g)claim.However,Plaintiffsfirstassertedthe claim onM arch 29,2018,in theirFirstAmended Complaint.SeeDoc.//11.Accordingly,because Plaintiffs'Section 1641(g)claimsaretime-barred,the Courtgrantsthe M otionsasto Plaintiffs' Section l641(g)claims.3 3 A lthough Plaintiffs argue that the discovery rule should toll the lim itations period for their Section1641(j)claims,PlaintiffshavenotpointedtheCourttoanycontrollingauthorityregarding thenlle'sappllcability to a Section 1641(g)claim. Additionally,Plaintiffshave failed to plead sufficient facts supporting a fraudulent concealm enttheory that m ighttollthe lim itations period forPlaintiffs'Section 164l(g)claimsinthiscase. 6 c. Plaintiffs'prom issory estoppelclaim s are tim e-barred. Promissory estoppelclaimsaresubjectto a four-yearstatute oflimitationsunderTexas law. Hunton,243 F.Supp.2d at713 11.46 (çsthelatestacauseofaction forpromissory estoppel couldaccrueiswhen thepromisorbreacheshispromise.'').Here,PlaintiffsallegethatBank of A m erica m ade an oralprom ise to m odify certain m aterialterm s ofthe N ote and D eed ofTrustin September2011ifPlaintiffssubmittedcertaindocuments.Doc.//11at!!62-71.Plaintiffsallege thatthey subm itted those documentsby November9,2011. 1d.lftrue,then certainly by the end of2012(i.e.,morethanayearlater),PlaintiffswereawarethatBank ofAmericahadbreached its alleged prom ise by notm odifying the term s. Thatgave Plaintiffsuntilthe end of2016 to asserta prom issol' y estoppelclaim . H ow ever,Plaintiffsdid notassertsuch claim s untilM arch 29,2018, in their FirstAm ended Complaint. 1d. Accordingly,because Plaintiffs'promissory estoppel claim sare tim e-barred,the Courtgrants the M otions as to Plaintiffs'prom issory estoppelclaim s. lV. Conclusion Forthe foregoing reasons,the M otionsare hereby G RAN TED underFederalRule ofCivil Procedure12(b)(6),andPlaintiffs'claimsareDISM ISSED. Itis so ORD ER ED . MA2 25 2112 Date The Honorabl A lfred H .Bennett United States istrictJudge 7
]]>
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.
