1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

RICK A. SLORP

5599 Coogan Place

Dublin, Ohio 43016,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

Reimer Law Co.

c/o Dennis Reimer

30455 Solon Rd.

Solon, OH 44139,

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

c/o CT Corporation System

150 Fayetteville Street., P.O. Box 1011

Raleigh, NC 27601

 Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 

JUDGE:

MAGISTRATE JUDGE:

JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON

COMPLAINT FOR MONEY DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiff institutes this action for actual damages, statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and 

the costs of this action against Defendant Reimer Law Co. (“Reimer”) and Defendant 

Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) for violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. for illegal actions taken in pursuit of an attempt to collect a 

debt in a state foreclosure case.

II. JURISDICTION & VENUE

2. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1692k(d), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.

Case: 2:18-cv-00703-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/18/18 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 1
2

3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant transacts business 

within this District. International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945). 

4. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio 

because Defendant conducts business in this District, and the act which gave rise to this 

lawsuit occurred in this District. 

III. PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Rick A. Slorp is a natural person currently residing within this Court’s 

jurisdiction at 5599 Coogan Place, Dublin, Ohio 43016.

6. Defendant BANA is a national association.

7. Defendant Reimer is a legal professional association (law firm) that represented 

Defendant BANA and its predecessors in a foreclosure action against Plaintiff.

8. At all times relevant to this transaction, Plaintiff Rick A. Slorp was and is a Consumer

within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3).

9. At all times relevant to this transaction, Defendant Reimer was and is a Debt Collector 

within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6), as it regularly collects or attempts to collect 

debts owed or due another. 

10. At all times relevant to this transaction, Defendant Reimer was and is a Debt Collector 

within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6), as it regularly acts as a third party collection 

agent for debts owed to others.

11. At all times relevant to this transaction, Defendant BANA was and is a Debt Collector 

within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6), as it regularly collects or attempts to collect 

debts owed or due another.

Case: 2:18-cv-00703-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/18/18 Page: 2 of 8 PAGEID #: 2
3

12. At all times relevant to this transaction, Defendant BANA was and is a Debt Collector 

within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6), as it is engaged in business the principal 

purpose of which is the collection of any debts.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

13. Plaintiff incorporates all other paragraphs in this Complaint by reference as though fully 

rewritten herein. 

14. On July 1, 2015, Defendant BANA filed a foreclosure action in state court against 

Plaintiff.

15. BANA employed Defendant law firm Reimer to represent it during this foreclosure 

action.

16. Reimer is an agent of BANA and therefore BANA is liable for any actions or filings 

made by Reimer pursuant to its representation of BANA.

17. On September 22, 2017, BANA obtained a judgment against Plaintiff.

18. On November 30, 2017, BANA, through its attorneys filed a “Motion for Order 

Authorizing Private Selling Officer to Sell Real Estate.” (Attached as Exhibit A).

19. Despite its title, BANA and its attorneys were attempting to take actions that it was not 

legally entitled to take.

20. BANA’s Motion was intended to appoint a private selling officer to conduct the 

foreclosure auction online, as opposed to a physical location.

21. BANA attempted to bypass the minimum bid requirements on R.C. 2329.20, which 

require the land sold in a foreclosure auction to be sold for at least two-thirds the amount 

of the appraised value.

Case: 2:18-cv-00703-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/18/18 Page: 3 of 8 PAGEID #: 3
4

22. R.C. 2329.52(B) clearly states that “when a residential property is ordered to be sold 

pursuant to a residential mortgage loan foreclosure action, and the sale will be held at a 

physical location and not online, and if the property remains unsold after the first auction, 

then a second auction shall be held and the property shall be sold to the highest bidder 

without regard to the minimum bid requirement in section 2329.20 of the Revised Code, 

but subject to section 2329.21 of the Revised Code relating to costs, allowances, and real 

estate taxes.”

23. In BANA’s Motion, BANA sought to sell the property online, but requested that “if the 

Property... is auctioned online and remains unsold after the first auction ... then the court 

directs a second online auction ... without regard to the minimum bid requirement.”

24. BANA’s request is clearly illegal.

25. Next, BANA requests to have the right to redeem the property within fourteen days of the 

sale.

26. Under Ohio law, the debtor enjoys the right of redemption under R.C. 2329.33. 

27. With no legal justification, BANA requested the trial court to grant it the ability to 

redeem the property within fourteen days of the sale.

28. BANA also requested that the state court reappraise the property or direct the amount the 

property should be sold for without the property first being appraised, advertised, and 

offered for sale and the property goes unsold for want of bidders, as required by R.C. 

2329.52(A).

29. The plain language of the statute requires that a motion for a new appraisal and sale or 

motion to direct the amount for which the property be sold may only occur after the 

property has first gone up to auction once, and remains unsold for a want of bidders.

Case: 2:18-cv-00703-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/18/18 Page: 4 of 8 PAGEID #: 4
5

30. BANA, through its attorneys, attempted to slide these three requests into a seemingly 

innocuous “Motion for Order Authorizing Private Selling Officer to Sell Real Estate.”

31. After Plaintiff opposed this Motion, BANA and its attorneys immediately withdrew the 

prior motion and filed a second motion, this time only requesting that the trial court issue 

an order authorizing a private selling officer, thereby conceding that they had taken 

illegal actions in order to collect on a debt.

32. Plaintiff incurred legal fees related to research and opposition of the Motion in the 

amount of $902.00.

V. COUNT I – FDCPA

33. Plaintiff incorporates all other paragraphs in this Complaint by reference as though fully 

rewritten herein.

34. Plaintiff is a consumer.

35. Defendants BANA and Reimer are debt collectors as defined by 15 U.S.C 1692a(6).

36. The subject mortgage loan is a debt as defined by 1692a(5). 

37. Defendant BANA acquired the alleged mortgage loan after it was in default.

38. Defendant BANA treated the mortgage loan as though it was in default when it acquired 

the mortgage loan.

39. The actions described above constitute a violation of the FDCPA at 15 U.S.C. 1692, et 

seq.

40. The note at issue in the state foreclosure matter was allegedly an obligation of Plaintiff to 

pay money in return for the loan to purchase his primary residence.

Case: 2:18-cv-00703-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/18/18 Page: 5 of 8 PAGEID #: 5
6

41. Defendants Reimer’s and BANA’s actions of filing a Motion requesting the state court to 

bypass the minimum bid requirements of Ohio’s law is a deceptive and/or misleading 

practice in an attempt to collect a debt, in violation of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.

42. Defendants Reimer’s and BANA’s actions of filing a Motion requesting the state court to 

reappraise the property or direct the amount the property should be sold for without the 

property first being appraised, advertised, and offered for sale and the property goes 

unsold for want of bidder is a deceptive and/or misleading practice in an attempt to 

collect a debt, in violation of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.

43. Defendants Reimer’s and BANA’s actions of filing a Motion requesting the court to grant 

BANA the right to redeem the property within fourteen days of the sale is a deceptive 

and/or misleading practice in an attempt to collect a debt, in violation of the FDCPA, 15 

U.S.C. § 1692e.

44. Defendants Reimer’s and BANA’s actions of filing a Motion requesting the state court to 

bypass the minimum bid requirements of Ohio’s law is an unfair or unconscionable 

means to collect a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f.

45. Defendants Reimer’s and BANA’s actions of filing a Motion requesting the state court to 

reappraise the property or direct the amount the property should be sold for without the 

property first being appraised, advertised, and offered for sale and the property goes 

unsold for want of bidder is an unfair or unconscionable means to collect a debt in 

violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f.

46. Defendants Reimer’s and BANA’s actions of filing a Motion requesting the court to grant 

BANA the right to redeem the property within fourteen days of the sale is an unfair or 

unconscionable means to collect a debt in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692f.

Case: 2:18-cv-00703-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/18/18 Page: 6 of 8 PAGEID #: 6
7

47. Defendants Reimer’s and BANA’s motion discussed above constitutes a threat to take 

action that could not legally be taken, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5). 

48. Defendants Reimer and BANA are liable to Plaintiff under this Count for its FDCPA 

violations in an amount equal to or greater than: actual damages in the amount of $902.00 

15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(1); statutory damages in the amount of $1,000, 15 U.S.C. § 

1692k(a)(2)(A); and attorneys fees and the costs of this action, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(a)(3).

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays the Court:

A. Assume jurisdiction of this case;

B. Award Plaintiff actual damages in the amount of $902.00 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 

1692k(a)(1);

C. Award Plaintiff statutory damages in the amount of $1,000, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1692k(a)(2)(A);

D. Award Plaintiff attorney’s fees and the costs of this action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 

1692k(a)(3);

E. Award such other relief the Court deems appropriate.

Dated: July 18, 2018

Respectfully Submitted,

DOUCET & ASSOCIATES CO., LPA

/s/ Christopher J. Gant _

Christopher J. Gant (0095730)

Attorney for Plaintiff Rick A. Slorp

700 Stonehenge Parkway, Suite 2B

Dublin, Ohio 43017

PH (614) 944-5219

FAX (818) 638-5548

gant@Doucet.Law

Case: 2:18-cv-00703-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/18/18 Page: 7 of 8 PAGEID #: 7
8

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff respectfully requests a jury trial on all triable issues.

/s/ Christopher J. Gant _

Christopher J. Gant (0095730)

Case: 2:18-cv-00703-EAS-KAJ Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/18/18 Page: 8 of 8 PAGEID #: 8