Powell et al v. Bank of America, No. 1:2018cv00824 - Document 21 (E.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION: As discussed above, this Complaint is difficult to comprehend, but clearly tries to relitigate issues which have already been adjudicated in both a state court and a federal court proceeding. As such, plaintiffs' claims must be dismissed as barred by res judicata and collateralestoppel. In addition, all claims exceed the relevant statute of limitations and are therefore time-barred, and plaintiffs are not eligible for equitable relief. Therefore, defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 13] will be GRANTED by an appropriate Order to be issued with this Memorandum Opinion. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 10/23/18. (yguy) (c/s to pro se pltf)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Powell et al v. Bank of America Doc. 21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division CHARLES A.POWELL,etal.. Plaintiffs, l:18-cv-00824(LMB/IDD) V. BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before the Court is the defendant Bank of America's Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. No. 13] in which it argues that the claims in plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint^ should be dismissed under the doctrines ofres judicata and collateral estoppel. Defendant also argues that the claims are time-barred. The pro se plaintiffs Charles A.Powell and Janice F. Powell have responded to the motion. Dkt. No. 19. Finding that oral argument would not further the decisional process, the defendant's Motion to Dismiss will be granted without oral argument for the reasons discussed below. I. BACKGROUND In their four-count complaint,^ plaintiffs allege that the defendant has fraudulently foreclosed on the real property known as 8462 Summer Breeze Lane, Springfield, Virginia(the "Property") and has violated the Home Ownership and Protection Act("HOEPA"), 15 U.S.C. § ^ Because the Second Amended Complaint is the only complaint in effect it will be referred to as the Complaint and all references will be to it. ^ Although the Complaint lists eight apparent causes of action—^lack ofstanding to foreclose, fraud in the concealment, quiet title, slander oftitle, declaratory relief, violations ofTILA, violations ofRESPA,and rescission—it contains only four counts. Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
