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.

Alexander v. Bank of America, N.A.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

October 25, 2017

MICHAEL A. ALEXANDER
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

         SECTION A(5)

          ORDER AND REASONS

          JAY C. ZAINEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court is a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Rec. Doc. 7) filed by Defendant Bank of America, N.A. (“Bank of America”), set for submission on September 20, 2017. This motion is before the Court on the briefs without oral argument. Pro Se Plaintiff Michael A. Alexander (“Alexander”) has not filed an opposition.[1] For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.

         I. Background

         This lawsuit arises out of a mortgage loan executed by Alexander. (Rec. Doc. 7-1, p. 2). On January 19, 1999, Alexander and Roxann Franklin Alexander executed a promissory note in the principal amount of $92, 791.00 in favor of Deep South Mortgage Company, Inc. (“Deep South”). (Rec. Doc. 7-2). The note was secured by a mortgage on Alexander's immovable property located in Harvey, Louisiana. (Rec. Doc. 7-4). Deep South endorsed the note to Union Planters Bank, National Association. (Rec. Doc. 7-2). On that same day, Alexander executed an Amended and Restated Note in the principal amount of $119, 975.66 in favor of the lender, BAC Home Loans, LP. (Rec. Doc. 7-3). The Amended and Restated Note provided that the “‘Lender' means BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP and its successors and assigns.” Id. The Amended and Restated Note also contains a blank endorsement by Bank of America, as successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP. (Rec. Doc. 7-3, p. 3). The mortgage also secures the Amended and Restated Note.

         On May 11, 2009, Alexander entered into a Loan Modification Agreement, whereby BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, as a subsidiary of Bank of America, agreed to amend and modify the terms of the notes. (Rec. Doc. 7-1, p. 3). On January 15, 2015, Alexander and Home Loan Servicing, LP again agreed to supplement and modify the terms of the original note. (Rec. Doc. 7-6).

         On April 24, 2017, Alexander filed this lawsuit. In his complaint, Alexander alleges Bank of America committed various fraudulent procedures that resulted in injury and loss to Alexander. (Rec. Doc. 1, p. 1). Alexander particularly brings his fraudulent practices claim under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (“LUTPA”). Alexander claims that Bank of America violated LUTPA by engaging in deceptive trade practices. Particularly, Alexander argues that his right to rescind the mortgage loan was violated under the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). 15 U.S.C. § 1601-1667. In particular, Alexander claims that he is entitled to rescind the mortgage loan because the lender (Bank of America and/or Deep South) never signed the loan contract. (Rec. Doc. 1, p. 3). Additionally, Alexander argues that “it may have been realized that the bank did not actually loan any money, and that [Alexander] did not receive the signed invoice of the debt. . . .” Id. Moreover, Alexander claims that he was deprived of the required credit and rescission disclosures under TILA and Regulation Z. According to the language of Regulation Z:

The purpose of [the] regulation is to promote the informed use of consumer credit by requiring disclosures about its terms and cost. The regulation also includes substantive protections. It gives consumers the right to cancel certain credit transactions that involve a lien on a consumer's principal dwelling, regulates certain credit card practices, and provides a means for fair and timely resolution of credit billing disputes.

12 C.F.R. § 226.1(b). Alexander also argues that the chain of title regarding the mortgage loan is corrupted because Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) “is no longer in existence.” (Rec. Doc. 1, p. 2). Alexander argues MERS was absorbed by a different corporation and is just a “strawman, [with] no assets or employees, no members, just a shell.” Id.

         Finally, according to Alexander's complaint, his mortgage loan “may have been converted” to a mortgage backed security. (Rec. Doc. 1, p. 3). Alexander contends that his mortgage loan was unlawfully used to fund a Pooling and Servicing Agreement without his knowledge or consent. Id. Alexander demands rights in the proceeds generated under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. Id. Alexander asks for relief in the amount of $2, 000, 000.00 for the damages sustained from these claims. Id. at p. 4.

         II. Standard

         A motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) is subject to the same standard as a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Doe v. MySpace, Inc., 528 F.3d 413, 418 (5th Cir. 2008). “[A]ll well-pleaded facts are viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, but plaintiffs must allege facts that support the elements of the cause of action in order to make out a valid claim.” City of Clinton v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., 632 F.3d 148, 152-53 (5th Cir. 2010). “To avoid dismissal, a plaintiff must plead sufficient facts to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Gentilello v. Rege, 627 F.3d 540, 544 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “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. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). The Court “do[es] not accept as true conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions.” Plotkin v. IP Axess Inc., 407 F.3d 690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005).

         III. Law and Analysis

         Bank of America contends that Alexander's LUTPA claim is inapplicable because Bank of America is exempt from LUTPA under La. Rev. Stat. § 51:1406(1) and Troung v. Bank of America, N.A., 717 F.3d 377, 385-86 (5th Cir. 2013). After considering the decision in Troung as well as Alexander's complaint, the Court is persuaded that Bank of America is correct. The Court also agrees with Bank of America that Alexander's Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim is time-barred. In considering the issue concerning Alexander's January 15, 2015 second Loan Modification Agreement, which occurred within 3 years of the filing of this lawsuit, the Court agrees with Judge Vance's decision in Castrillo v. American Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., which held that a mortgagor's loan modification agreement constitutes a mere modification of a mortgagor's existing ...


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.