Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01091/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01091-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
PNC Bank
Appellee
Balwinder Singh Whala
Appellant
Jatinder Kaur Whala
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1091

BALWINDER SINGH WHALA; JATINDER KAUR WHALA,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

PNC BANK, National Association,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior 

District Judge. (1:14-cv-00894-JCC-IDD)

Argued: January 27, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the 

opinion, in which Judge Floyd and Senior Judge Davis joined.

ARGUED: Henry Woods McLaughlin, III, LAW OFFICE OF HENRY 

MCLAUGHLIN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants. 

Constantinos George Panagopoulos, BALLARD SPAHR LLP, Washington, 

D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Theodore R. Flo, BALLARD SPAHR 

LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1091 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 6
2

NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:

When Balwinder and Jatinder Whala failed, for several 

months, to make installment payments on their mortgage, the 

mortgagee, PNC Bank, N.A., foreclosed the mortgage and sold the 

Whalas’ house for $460,320, some $90,000 less than what the 

Whalas believed was the house’s fair market value. The Whalas 

commenced this action for breach of contract, alleging that PNC 

Bank’s 30-day notice of default, which led to foreclosure, was 

defective because it included, in its statement of the amount 

necessary to cure, the amount of a future installment that was 

not yet due.

The district court dismissed the complaint under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and we affirm. While the 30-

day notice of default included, in the amount necessary to cure,

a future payment that was to become due during the 30-day notice 

period, the statement of the amount to cure was neither 

inaccurate nor misleading. We conclude, therefore, that PNC 

Bank did not breach the loan documents in giving notice.

I

In April 2007, to purchase a home in Lorton, Virginia, the 

Whalas borrowed $419,000 from PNC Bank’s predecessor. The 

notice of default provision that was contained in the note that 

the Whalas signed provided:

Appeal: 15-1091 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 6
3

If I am in default, the Note Holder may send me a 

written notice telling me that if I do not pay the 

overdue amount by a certain date, the Note Holder may 

require me to pay immediately the full amount of 

Principal which has not been paid and all the interest 

that I owe on that amount. That date must be at least 

30 days after the date on which the notice is mailed 

to me or delivered by other means.

The deed of trust securing the note provided similarly:

Lender shall give notice to Borrower prior to 

acceleration following Borrower’s breach of any 

covenant or agreement . . . . The notice shall 

specify: (a) the default; (b) the action required to 

cure the default; (c) a date, not less than 30 days 

from the date the notice is given to Borrower, by 

which the default must be cured; and (d) that failure 

to cure the default on or before the date specified in 

the notice may result in acceleration of the sums 

secured . . . and sale of the Property.

Approximately three years later, the Whalas failed to make 

payments for installments due on March 1, April 1, and May 1, 

2010. PNC Bank then sent the Whalas a notice of default and 

acceleration, dated May 4, 2010, which included the following:

The action required to cure the breach or default 

mentioned above on or before June 3, 2010 is as 

follows: *Payment in certified funds of $14,770.18 

which includes the 6/1/2010 installment and applicable 

late charges, property inspection and non-sufficient 

funds fees.

Failure to cure the breach or default by said date, 

will result in the acceleration of the maturity date 

of the Note . . . .

(Emphasis added).

The Whalas did not cure the default by June 3, 2010, or at 

any time after that date, and PNC Bank initiated foreclosure 

proceedings, selling the house in May 2011 at auction for 

Appeal: 15-1091 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 6
4

$460,320. The Whalas contend that, at that time, the fair

market value of the house was at least $550,000.

The Whalas commenced this breach of contract action in 

Virginia state court in April 2014, and PNC Bank removed it to 

federal court. The Whalas alleged that PNC Bank breached the 

provisions of the loan documents with its May 4, 2010 notice by 

improperly inflating the payment necessary to cure the default 

by including the amount to become due on June 1, 2010. They 

argue that the defective notice produced the foreclosure sale 

that resulted in their loss of equity in the house and other 

damages. The district court granted PNC Bank’s motion to 

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding that the May 4, 2010 

notice of default was not defective.

This appeal followed.

II

While the Whalas do not dispute that they had defaulted on 

their loan prior to PNC Bank’s notice of May 4, 2010, they argue 

that the notice failed to accurately state the “overdue amount” 

because it included an amount not yet due -- the June 1, 2010 

installment. They reason that, because PNC Bank failed to 

provide them with an accurate notice, it breached its legal 

obligations under the loan documents, leading to an illegal 

foreclosure and sale.

Appeal: 15-1091 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 4 of 6
5

PNC Bank contends that the 30-day default notice was 

accurate and did not breach the loan documents. It argues that 

the notice simply alerted the Whalas that they had to pay the 

overdue amount as of the date of the notice and that they also 

had to pay any amount that came due during the 30-day cure 

period, which included the June 1, 2010 installment.

We agree with PNC Bank. The loan documents required PNC 

Bank to provide a 30-day notice specifying the amount of money 

that the Whalas had to pay to cure their default and avoid 

foreclosure. Because the default notice was dated May 4, 2010, 

and 30 days thereafter was June 3, 2010 -- when the June 1 

installment would also be past due -- the notice accurately 

stated, “The action required to cure the breach or default . . . 

on or before June 3, 2010, is as follows: *Payment in certified 

funds of $14,770.18 which includes the 6/1/2010 installment.” 

(Emphasis added). This notice made clear that, because the 

Whalas had until June 3, 2010, to cure the default -- a date 

that fell beyond the due date for the June 1 installment -- the

amount required to cure as of June 3 would also have to include 

the June 1 installment. Any reasonable person would also 

conclude that, if the Whalas had chosen to cure before June 1, 

2010, they could have simply withheld the June 1 installment 

until June 1 and made that payment then.

Appeal: 15-1091 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 5 of 6
6

Accordingly, we conclude that PNC Bank did not, as alleged,

breach the loan documents -- the note and the deed of trust --

and therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-1091 Doc: 27 Filed: 03/22/2016 Pg: 6 of 6