Harrison v. US Bank National Association, No. 3:2014cv00686 - Document 15 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION re 14 Order denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 6/5/2015. (jsmi, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Harrison v. US Bank National Association Doc. 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division JOHNNY HARRISON, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-686 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee under Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as ofNovember 1, 2005, Master Asset-Backed Securities Trust 2005-FREl Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-FREl, Defendant. OPINION In 2011, Johnny Harrison defaulted on his home mortgage, so U.S. Bank foreclosed on his home. Harrison brings this suit for breach of contract, alleging that U.S. Bank unlawfully foreclosed on his home in violation of terms of the loan agreement, costing him ownership, equity, and increase in the value of his home, and damaging his credit record. U.S. Bank filed this motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). I. facts' In 2005, Harrison purchased a property in Chesterfield County, Virginia, by entering into a mortgage loan evidenced by a note and secured by a deed of trust. U.S. Bank currently holds the note. Both the note and the deed of trust provide that if the borrower defaults, the lendermay ' In considering the motion, a court must accept all allegations in the complaint as true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999); Warner v. Buck CreekNursery, Inc., 149 F. Supp. 2d 246, 254-55 (W.D. Va. 2001). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matterthat, if accepted as true, "state[s] a claim to reliefthat is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting BellAtl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 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.
