Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01796/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01796-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Vladimir Brunat, Dagmar Brunat

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

IndyMac Federal Bank; Deutsche Bank

National Trust Company; Quality Loan

Service Corporation, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-1796-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it defendant Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss (doc. 24),

plaintiffs’ response (doc. 26), and defendant’s reply (doc. 27).

On March 25, 2005, plaintiffs entered into a residential mortgage transaction with

M&I Marshall and Ilsey Bank, to finance the purchase of their home (the “Property”). On

September 20, 2006, plaintiffs refinanced the original loan with IndyMac Federal Bank,

executing a promissory note in the amount of $748,500.00 (“new loan”) which was secured

by a deed of trust on the Property. On June 17, 2009, IndyMac assigned “all beneficial

interest” in the new loan to Deutsche Bank. 

Plaintiffs claim that the defendants failed to make disclosures required by the Truth

in Lending Act and filed this action seeking rescission and statutory damages. See 15 U.S.C.

§§ 1635, 1640. Deutsche Bank now moves to dismiss Count 1of the complaint pursuant to

Case 2:09-cv-01796-FJM Document 29 Filed 05/26/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P. 

The right of rescission is not an available remedy for either a residential mortgage

transaction as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1602(w), or for a refinancing of the principal balance

then due. 15 U.S.C. § 1635(e)(1) and (2). Because the subject loan was a refinance of

plaintiffs’ initial financing of the Property, rescission is not an available remedy under TILA

and plaintiffs’ claim for rescission is dismissed. 

Plaintiffs have also failed to state a claim for statutory damages under TILA.

Deutsche Bank is the assignee of the underlying deed of trust. It was not the original lender.

A civil action for statutory damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1641(a) can be maintained against an

assignee “only if the violation for which such action or proceeding is brought is apparent on

the face of the disclosure statement.” Id. Plaintiffs contend that the itemization of the

amount financed in the disclosure statement failed to include as part of the finance charge

fees for document preparation, recording, notary and appraisal. Complaint ¶¶ 15-16. But a

review of the disclosure statement gives no indication that there was any violation of TILA’s

disclosure requirements. See Complaint, exhibit F. Therefore, plaintiffs have failed to set

forth the prerequisites for a valid claim against Deutsche Bank as assignee of the loan.

Plaintiffs’ claim for statutory damages against Deutsche Bank is dismissed.

IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendant Deutsche Bank’s motion to dismiss Count

1 of the complaint (doc. 24). 

DATED this 26th day of May, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-01796-FJM Document 29 Filed 05/26/10 Page 2 of 2