Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bey v. Bank of America

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

July 8, 2015

KHARA AMUN BEY
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL., Sectyion:

ORDER AND REASONS

JAY C. ZAINEY, District Judge.

Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 8) filed by defendant Bank of America, N.A. ("BANA"). Plaintiff, Khara Amun Bey, opposes the motion.[1] The motion, set for submission on March 11, 2015, is before the Court without oral argument. For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action to quiet title to property located at 3649 Lake Lynn Drive, Gretna, Louisiana. Plaintiff claims that he is entitled to do so "through [i]ndigenous family lineage, [a]ffidavit, and corporeal possession."

More specifically, Plaintiff claims that he took corporeal possession of the property with the intent to possess as owner on October 13, 2014, as evidenced by his acts of maintenance and repair. He alleges that at the time of taking possession the property had been abandoned and eviction proceedings had been instituted against it.

Plaintiff received a letter from Dean Morris, L.L.P. (a law firm), dated October 30, 2014, informing any "occupants" that the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac") owns the property and was instituting eviction proceedings. Plaintiff claims that there is no evidence of Freddie Mac's ownership and that it is a negligent misrepresentation.

Plaintiff also claims that defendant BSM Financial, L.P., originally held a mortgage on the property which it then transferred to BANA, recorded on October 30, 2014. Plaintiff alleges that neither of these entities ever owned the property, thus rendering the transfers fraudulent. He further alleges that as corporations they cannot have ownership rights on real property.

Plaintiff filed this Complaint December 10, 2014, claiming that these allegedly "fraudulent conveyances constitute a cloud on [his] title" and seeking a ruling of this Court that any ownership claims of Defendants are "null and void."

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In the context of a motion to dismiss the Court must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (2007); Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Lovick v. Ritemoney, Ltd., 378 F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2004)). However, the foregoing tenet is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Thread-bare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Id. (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550, U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

The central issue in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is whether, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the complaint states a valid claim for relief. Gentilello v. Rege, 627 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413, 418 (5th Cir. 2008)). To avoid dismissal, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to "state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. (quoting Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. The Court does not accept as true "conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions." Id. (quoting Plotkin v. IP Axess, Inc., 407 F.3d 690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005)). Legal conclusions must be supported by factual allegations. Id. (quoting Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950).

Pro se pleadings must be given the benefit of liberal construction. Cooper v. Sheriff of Lubbock Cnty., 929 F.2d 1078, 1081 (5th Cir. 1991). On the other hand, pro se litigants are not exempt from the requirement that they plead sufficient facts to allege a plausible claim for relief or from the principle that mere legal conclusions do not suffice to prevent dismissal. Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Christian Leader. Conf. v. Sup.Ct. of La., 252 F.3d 781, 786 (5th Cir. 2001)).

III. DISCUSSION

a. Subject Matter ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.