Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00149/USCOURTS-alsd-1_16-cv-00149-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TRACY LYNN BREECH 

BROUSSARD,

Plaintiff,

:

:

:

:

:

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 16-149-CG-M

:

CITIMORTGAGE, INC., and 

PENNYMAC CORP.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint 

(Doc. 20) and Brief in Support thereof (Doc. 21) under 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 12(b)(6) was 

referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72.2(c)(4), and is now before 

the Court. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has not filed a 

response, the deadline for filing a response having passed 

on September 6, 2016. (See Doc. 22). After careful 

consideration of the record, it is recommended that the 

motion to dismiss be granted as to all counts.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2007, Vera and Leo Dean (hereinafter “Dean”) 

mortgaged their home by executing a note and mortgage with 

First Residential for the amount of $127,000.00. (Doc. 4 at

1; Doc. 10 at 1). As part of the mortgage process, an 

Case 1:16-cv-00149-CG-M Document 28 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 14
2

appraiser did an appraisal of the Dean residence and 

improperly described the property as “Parcel 2A of the 

Walter Sherles ‘Estate Division’ containing 12.35 acres, 

more or less, as per plat thereof dated May 29, 1996, 

prepared by Cecil Clyde Turner, Registered Land Surveyor, 

Alabama No. 9229, and recorded in Plat Book 4, at page 76 

in the Office of the Judge of Probate of Washington County, 

Alabama” (Doc. 4-5) (hereinafter the “Sherles Estate”). 

This property description was then included in the Dean 

Mortgage. In 2008, Vera Dean died. (Doc. 10 at 2). In 

2010, First Residential transferred the Dean Mortgage to 

CitiMortgage. (Doc. 4 at 2; Doc. 10 at 2). In December, 

2010, CitiMortgage published a Notice of Foreclosure of the 

Dean Mortgage in the Washington County News, which 

Plaintiff read. (Doc. 1 at 3). The notice included the 

Sherles Estate (Plaintiff’s property) as being part of the 

property being foreclosed upon. Id. Realizing the error, 

Plaintiff contacted the law firm handling the foreclosure 

sale, made a payment to prevent the foreclosure, and,

thereafter, began her efforts to have the property 

description corrected so as to exclude the Sherles 

Property. Id. The Dean Mortage was later assigned to 

PennyMac. (Doc. 4 at 2).

Case 1:16-cv-00149-CG-M Document 28 Filed 09/22/16 Page 2 of 14
3

In 2014, Defendant, PennyMac, filed a state court 

action in Washington County, Alabama to “reform the 

Mortgage to reflect the correct legal description of the 

Property to protect its interest in the Property.” (Doc. 4

at 2; Doc. 4-5). Plaintiff failed to answer the state 

court action and a default judgment was entered on behalf 

of PennyMac on April 14, 2015. (Doc. 4 at 3; Doc. 4-7). 

Following the entry of default, Plaintiff appeared in the 

state court action, asked the Court to reconsider its 

ruling, and, thereafter, on January 14, 2016, a modified 

final order was entered in that action. (Doc. 4 at 3; Doc. 

4-9). On April 15, 2016, PennyMac foreclosed on the 

property at issue in the state court action. (Doc. 4 at 7-

8; Doc. 4-10.) 

Plaintiff filed her Complaint in this Court on April 

7, 2016, against Defendants, PennyMac Corp. (hereinafter 

“PennyMac”) and CitiMortgage Inc. (hereinafter 

“CitiMortgage”). (Doc. 1). Therein, Plaintiff stated that 

she was the “deed holder to Township 3 North, Range 1 West, 

Section 20 Part 24 of the Sherles Estate (the "Sherles 

Property"), (ref. Deed Book 381 at page 284)” and that 

Defendant improperly included said property into the Dean 

Mortgage. (Id. at 2). As a result, Plaintiff has brought 

this action against Defendants for “Wrongful Foreclosure 

Case 1:16-cv-00149-CG-M Document 28 Filed 09/22/16 Page 3 of 14
4

and Fraud (Count I), in violation of the Truth in Lending 

Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1601 and Wire Fraud (Count II).” Id.

CitiMortgage filed the subject Motion to Dismiss and Brief 

in Support on August 18, 2016, arguing that Plaintiff 

failed to meet the pleading requirements of Rules 8(a) and 

12(b)(6) and that CitiMortgage was not involved in the 

April 2016 foreclosure. (Docs. 20, 21). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

To survive dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must first 

satisfy the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a)(2), which 

provides that "[a] pleading that states a claim for relief 

must contain ... a short and plain statement of the claim 

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. . . ." 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). While Rule 8 establishes a regime 

of "notice pleading," Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 

506, 512, 513-14, 122 S. Ct. 992, 152 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2002), 

it does not eliminate all pleading requirements.

First, the complaint must address all the elements 

that must be shown in order to support recovery under one 

or more causes of action. "At a minimum, notice pleading 

requires that a complaint contain inferential allegations 

from which we can identify each of the material elements 

necessary to sustain a recovery under some viable legal 

Case 1:16-cv-00149-CG-M Document 28 Filed 09/22/16 Page 4 of 14
5

theory." Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 960 

(11th Cir. 2009) (emphasis and internal quotes omitted).

Pleading elements is necessary, but it is not enough 

to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2). The rule "requires more than 

labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the 

elements of a cause of action will not do" to satisfy that 

rule. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 

127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2009). In addition, 

there must be a pleading of facts. Though they need not be 

detailed, "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a 

right to relief above the speculative level ...." Id. That 

is, the complaint must allege "enough facts to state a 

claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Id. at 

570. "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." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 

129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). That is, 

“[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to 

relief above the speculative level” and must be a “‘plain 

statement’ possess[ing] enough heft to ‘sho[w] that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 

557, 127 S. Ct. at 1965, 1966 (second brackets in 

original). But “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a 

Case 1:16-cv-00149-CG-M Document 28 Filed 09/22/16 Page 5 of 14
6

cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, 

do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 

1949. 

When considering a pro se litigant’s allegations, a 

court gives them a liberal construction holding them to a 

more lenient standard than those of an attorney. Haines v. 

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 595-596, 30 

L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). The court, however, does not have 

“license . . . to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading 

[by a pro se litigant] in order to sustain an action.” GJR 

Investments v. County of Escambia, Fla., 132 F.3d 1359, 

1369 (11th Cir. 1998), overruled on other grounds by

Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 710 (11th Cir. 2010) 

(relying on Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S. Ct. 1937). 

Furthermore, the court treats as true factual allegations, 

but it does not treat as true conclusory assertions or a 

recitation of a cause of action’s elements. Iqbal, 566 

U.S. at 681, 129 S. Ct. at 1951.

When considering whether a complaint states a claim

for relief, the Court "should assume, on a case-by-case 

basis, that well pleaded factual allegations are true and 

then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an

entitlement to relief." Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 710 

(11th Cir. 2010). 

Case 1:16-cv-00149-CG-M Document 28 Filed 09/22/16 Page 6 of 14
7

DISCUSSION

CitiMortgage argues that Plaintiff’s claims are due to 

be dismissed because they fail to state a claim upon which 

relief could be granted. (Doc. 1 at 6-7). CitiMortgage, 

separating out the double counts of the Complaint (see Doc. 

1 at 2), addresses Plaintiff’s claims as four separate 

causes of action: wrongful foreclosure, fraud, violation of 

the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), and wire fraud. (Doc. 21 

at 1).

A. WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE

In order for Plaintiff to state a plausible cause of 

action for wrongful foreclosure, she must assert facts that 

show that “a mortgagee use[d] the power of sale given under 

a mortgage for a purpose other than to secure the debt owed 

by the mortgager.” Wallace v. Suntrust Mortgage Inc., 974 

F.Supp. 2d. 1358, 1363-64 (S.D. Ala. 2013)(quoting Jackson 

v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 90 So.3d 168, 171 (Ala.2012). 

At the time Plaintiff’s Complaint was filed, no foreclosure 

sale had taken place. Thus, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not 

properly state a claim for wrongful foreclosure, i.e., that 

a foreclosure had taken place or that said foreclosure was 

for a purpose other than to secure a debt and is subject to 

dismissal. It is undisputed that a foreclosure has now 

taken place. However, CitiMortgage was not involved in the 

Case 1:16-cv-00149-CG-M Document 28 Filed 09/22/16 Page 7 of 14
8

April 2016 mortgage, which was executed by PennyMac. (Doc. 

4-10 at 5). It is undisputed that CitiMortgage no longer 

had any interest in the subject property at the time of the 

foreclosure, having assigned any previous interest to 

PennyMac. (See Doc. 1 at 3). Consequently, Plaintiff 

cannot plead a crucial element of the cause of action, that 

Defendant used a power of sale under a mortgage. See

Wallace, 974 F.Supp. 2d. at 1363-64. Since a material 

element of the claim cannot be pleaded, Plaintiff’s 

wrongful foreclosure claim necessarily fails. See Mack v. 

City of High Springs, 486 Fed. App’x 3, 6 (11th Cir. 2012) 

(“To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the 

plaintiff must plead either direct or inferential 

allegations respecting all the material elements necessary 

to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.”)

B. FRAUD

With regard to the fraud claim, “[i]t has been 

established that Rule 9(b) is satisfied if the complaint 

sets forth the following: ‘(1) precisely what statements 

were made in what documents or oral representations or what 

omissions were made, and (2) the time and place of each 

such statement and the person responsible for making (or, 

in the case of omissions, not making) same, and (3) the 

content of such statements and the manner in which they 

Case 1:16-cv-00149-CG-M Document 28 Filed 09/22/16 Page 8 of 14
9

misled the plaintiff, and (4) what the defendants obtained 

as a consequence of the fraud.’” United States ex rel. 

Clausen v. Laboratory Corp. of America, Inc., 290 F.3d 

1301, 1310 (11th Cir.2002) (citations omitted); see also 

Hill v. Morehouse Medical Assocs., Inc., 2003 WL 22019936, 

*3 (11th Cir. Aug. 15, 2003) (“plaintiff must plead facts 

as to time, place, and substance of the defendant’s alleged 

fraud, specifically the details of the defendants’ 

allegedly fraudulent acts, when they occurred, and who 

engaged in them.”). In other words, “to avoid dismissal, a 

complaint alleging fraud must plead the ‘who, what, when, 

where and how’ of the alleged fraud.” Hay v. Bank of 

America, 2013 WL 1339729, *12 (N.D.Ga.March 29, 2013). 

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to set forth the necessary 

facts as to when, what, where, or how CitiMortgage

committed fraud. Additionally, CitiMortgage was not 

responsible for executing the mortgage (when the subject 

property was inadvertently included) or for executing the 

foreclosure. (Doc. 4 at 1; Doc. 4-10 at 5). Thus, it is 

not plausible that Plaintiff would be able to plead any 

gain that Defendant obtained as a consequence of the 

alleged fraud, an essential element of the cause of action. 

(See United States ex rel. Clausen, 290 F.3d at 1310). 

Case 1:16-cv-00149-CG-M Document 28 Filed 09/22/16 Page 9 of 14
10

Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint necessarily fails under the 

heightened Rule 9(b) standard. (See id.).

C. VIOLATION OF THE TRUTH IN LENDING ACT

In pleading violations of the TILA, Plaintiff states 

only that Defendant acted “in violation of the Truth in 

Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1601.” (Doc. 1 at 2). Title 15, 

Section 1601 of the United States Code is an introductory 

section giving which concerns only Congressional findings 

and the purpose of the Act without imposing any 

requirements on lenders. The Court construes the pleadings 

of the pro se Plaintiff liberally, but cannot identify an 

adequately pled cause of action concerning any other part 

of the Act. TILA concerns the disclosure requirements 

imposed on lenders, which in the case of a mortgage 

overwhelmingly deal with closing. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601-

1666; 12 C.F.R. § 1026. Again, CitiMortgage was not 

responsible for executing the mortgage, as it obtained its 

interest in the subject property through an assignment. 

(Doc. 4 at 1; Doc. 4-10 at 5). Since Plaintiff has not 

pled a cause of action under TILA, this claim is due to be 

dismissed. See Mack, 486 Fed. App’x at 6.

D. WIRE FRAUD

Pleading wire fraud requires allegations that the 

Defendant “(1) intentionally participate[d] in a scheme to 

Case 1:16-cv-00149-CG-M Document 28 Filed 09/22/16 Page 10 of 14
11

defraud another of money or property and (2) use[d] or 

‘cause[d]’ the use of the mails or wires for the purpose of 

executing the scheme or artifice.” Frederick v. Serv. 

Experts Heating & Air Conditioning, LLC, 2016 WL 3753160, 

at *4 (N.D. Ala. July 14, 2016). “A scheme to defraud 

requires proof of material misrepresentations, or the 

omission or concealment of material facts, reasonably 

calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence.” Id.

quoting United States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264, 1270-71 

(11th Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted). In this 

case, the scheme at issue is the alleged wrongful 

foreclosure. See Doc. 1 at 3. However, CitiMortgage was not 

the party responsible for executing the mortgage (when the 

subject property was inadvertently included) or for 

executing the foreclosure. (Doc. 4 at 1; Doc. 4-10 at 5). 

Thus, Plaintiff cannot plead that CitiMortgage participated 

in the alleged scheme and an essential element of the cause 

of action fails. See Frederick, 2016 WL 3753160, at *4. 

Since a material element of the claim is lacking, 

Plaintiff’s wire fraud claim cannot survive the motion to 

dismiss. See Mack, 486 Fed. App’x at 6.

All of Plaintiff’s claims are subject to dismissal for 

failure to state a claim upon which relief could be 

granted. Other than stating in a conclusory fashion that 

Case 1:16-cv-00149-CG-M Document 28 Filed 09/22/16 Page 11 of 14
12

Defendants were liable for the alleged causes of action, 

Plaintiff failed to state any facts setting forth the 

grounds for those causes of action and, as it is written, 

the Complaint does not meet the pleading requirements set 

forth herein above. "Where a more carefully drafted 

complaint might state a claim, a plaintiff must be given at 

least one chance to amend the complaint before the district 

court dismisses the action with prejudice." Bank v. Pitt, 

928 F.2d 1108, 1112 (11th Cir. 1991)(per curiam), overruled 

in part by Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Indus. Am Corp., 314 F.3d 

541, 542 (11th Cir. 2002). See also Watkins v. Hudson, 560 

Fed. App’x 908, 911 n. 2 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that 

Wagner overruled Hudson with respect to plaintiffs who are 

represented by counsel). However, “if a more carefully 

drafted complaint could not state a claim,” dismissal is 

proper. Id. citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 

(1957). In this case, it is not plausible that a more 

carefully crafted complaint could state a claim as to 

CitiMortgage. Additionally, the Court notes that Plaintiff 

has not filed any response in opposition to CitiMortgage’s 

Motion to Dismiss, as ordered by the Court. (See Doc. 22) 

Accordingly, it is recommended that leave to amend the 

complaint not be given to Plaintiff as to Defendant 

CitiMortgage Inc.

Case 1:16-cv-00149-CG-M Document 28 Filed 09/22/16 Page 12 of 14
13

CONCLUSION

For the reasons herein above, it is recommended that 

the motion to dismiss be granted as to all counts and 

Defendant CitiMortage Inc. be dismissed without prejudice.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FILE OBJECTIONS

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be 

served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any 

party who objects to this recommendation or anything in it 

must, within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of 

this document, file specific written objections with the 

Clerk of this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); 

FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b); S.D. ALA. L.R. 72(c). The parties should 

note that under Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, “[a] party 

failing to object to a magistrate judge's findings or 

recommendations contained in a report and recommendation in 

accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

waives the right to challenge on appeal the district 

court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal 

conclusions if the party was informed of the time period 

for objecting and the consequences on appeal for failing to 

object. In the absence of a proper objection, however, the 

court may review on appeal for plain error if necessary in 

the interests of justice.” 11th Cir. R. 3-1. In order to 

be specific, an objection must identify the specific 

Case 1:16-cv-00149-CG-M Document 28 Filed 09/22/16 Page 13 of 14
14

finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state 

the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the 

Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation where the 

disputed determination is found. An objection that merely 

incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before 

the Magistrate Judge is not specific. 

 DONE this 22nd day of September, 2016. 

s/BERT W. MILLING, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00149-CG-M Document 28 Filed 09/22/16 Page 14 of 14