IN#THE#UNITED#STATES#DISTRICT#COURT#FOR#THE

SOUTHERN#DISTRICT#OF#ALABAMA

SOUTHERN#DIVISION

GEORGE!P.!SHEDD,!JR.,!et#

al.,

Plaintiffs.

v.

WELLS!FARGO!HOME!

MORTGAGE,!INC.,!et#al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIVIL!ACTION!NO.

14D00275DCBDM

ORDER

This!matter!is!before!the!Court!on!a!Motion!to!Dismiss!the!Second!Amended!

Complaint!filed!by!defendants!Wells!Fargo!Home!Mortgage,!Inc.!and!Monument!

Street!Financing,!II,!LLC,!Plaintiffs’ response,!and!Defendants’!reply.!!(Docs.!84,!91,!&!

100.)!!After!due!consideration!of!all!issues,!the!Court!finds!the!motion!is!due!to!be!

granted,!in!part,!and!denied,!in!part.

I.##Procedural#Background

In!the!immortal!words!of!the!late Yogi!Berra:!!“It’s!déjà!vu!all!over!again.”!!!In!

November!2014,!the!Court!entered!an!order!granting,!in!part,!and!denying,!in!part,!

the!Defendants’!motion!to!dismiss!the!First!Amended!Complaint!(FAC).!!(Doc.!34.)!!

Some!causes!of!action!were!dismissed!in!their!entirety!(e.g., breach!of!the!covenant!

of!good!faith!and!fair!dealing,!breach!of!fiduciary!duty,!negligence,!and!some!RESPA!

claims).!!Others were!dismissed!in!part!(e.g., wantonness,!unjust!enrichment,!other!

RESPA!claims).!!After!some!discovery,!the!Magistrate!Judge!stayed!this!action!and!

held!a!settlement!conference.!!The!case!did!not!settle,!and!a!new!deadline!for!

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 1 of 31
2

amending!pleadings!was!set.!!Plaintiffs!filed!a!motion!for!leave to!file!a!Second!

Amended!Complaint (SAC).!!(Doc.!68.)!!The!motion!for!leave!to!amend!was!granted!

without!objection.!!(Doc.!73.)!!The!most!recent!complaint,!like!the!previous!one,!is!

based!on!events!related!to!the!servicing!of!the!Shedds’!mortgage!by!the!Defendants!

and!contains!substantially!the!same!causes!of!action,!including!those!that!were!

dismissed.1!!!

II.##The#Second#Amended#Complaint

The!SAC!provides!greater!factual!detail!than!the!FAC!but!does!not!alter!the!

basic!outline!of!events!giving!rise!to!Plaintiffs’!causes!of!action,!with!one!exception.!!

The!FAC!alleged!that!both!George!Shedd!and!Pamela!Shedd!signed!the!promissory!

note!that!is!the!basis!of!this!action.!!The!SAC,!however, alleges!that!only!Pamela!

Shedd!signed!the!promissory!note,!although both!George!Shedd!and!Pamela!Shedd!

signed!the!mortgage!on!the!family!residence!that!secured!the!promissory!note.!!

Those!documents!were!executed!in!2001.!

Defendant!Barclays!Capital!Real!Estate,!Inc.!(Barclays)!initially!serviced!the!

loan!and!continued!to!do!so!after!it!was!assigned!to!Monument!Street!Financing II,!

LLC!(Monument).!!Loan!payments!fell!behind,!and!in!2008!the!Shedds!filed!a!

Chapter!11!bankruptcy!petition!in!this!district.!!Barclays,!the!loan!servicer,!

represented!to!the!bankruptcy!court!that!it!was!the!creditor!and!sought!a!relief!from!

the!automatic!stay.!!On!April!25,!2008,!the!bankruptcy!court!entered!an!order!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1The!primary!distinction!between!the!two!complaints!is!length.!!The!FAC!was!

65!pages!(including!“only”!20!pages!of!facts).!!The!SAC!is!151!pages!(including!70!

pages!of!facts).!!The!problems!caused!by!this!inflated!pleading!was!discussed!with!

the!parties!in!a!conference!call,!and!the!Court!has!fashioned!a!remedy!that!will!

permit!Defendants!to!file!an!answer!without!having!to!address!each!factual!

allegation!in!the!SAC.!(Doc.!102.)

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 2 of 31
3

finding!the!parties!had!entered!into!an!adequate!protection!agreement!that required!

the!Shedds!to!pay!their!regular!mortgage!payment!plus!an!additional!$306.62!

monthly!beginning!with!the!April!2008!payment.!!Subsequently,!the!bankruptcy!

court!confirmed!the!reorganization!plan,!which!required!the!Shedds!to!pay!the!

additional!$306.62!for!60!months!to!satisfy!in!full!a!preDpetition!arrearage!of!

$16,500.

Barclays!used!a!software!package!from!a!third!party!vendor that!was!not!

equipped!to!handle!bankruptcy!payments.!!As!a!result,!payments!made!by!the!

Shedds!after!April!2008!were!mishandled.!!For!example,!payments!that!should!have!

been!applied!to!the!arrearage!were!held!in!suspense or!rejected; payments!that!

should!have!been!applied!to!current!monthly!loan!payments!were!applied!to!past!

due!amounts,!fees!and!expenses.!!Not!surprisingly,!Barclays’!inability!to!correctly!

apply!the!payments!created!a!nightmare!for!the!SheddsDDthe!loan!was!placed!in!

default,!foreclosure proceedings!were!initiated,!various!fees!were!added,!their!

mortgage!interest!was!misreported,!the!Shedds!credit!suffered.!!For!more!than!two!

years,!the!Shedds!worked!with!Barclays!to!correct!the!problem,!but!it!was!never!

resolved.

On!September!1,!2010,!Monument!transferred!servicing!to!defendant!Wells!

Fargo!Home!Mortgage,!Inc. (Wells!Fargo).2!!However,!Wells!Fargo!used!the!same!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2 The!SAC!alleges,!somewhat!confusingly,!that!Wells!Fargo!Home Mortgage,!

Inc.!is!a!“division”!of!Wells!Fargo!Bank,!N.A.!and!also!alleges!that!“Wells!Fargo!

presently!services!the!mortgage!loan!as!Wells!Fargo!Home!Mortgage,!Inc.!

(sometimes!hereafter!referred!to!as!WFHM).”!!(SAC!¶!4.)!!Wells!Fargo!Bank,!N.A.!is!

not!named!as!a!defendant!in!this!action.!!

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 3 of 31
4

software!vendor!as!Barclays,!and!the!problems!persisted.3!!The!Shedds,!sometimes!

through their!counsel,!communicated!repeatedly!with!Wells!Fargo!about!the!

misapplication!and!rejection!of!payments!as!a!result!of!the!bankruptcy!plan.!!In!

letters!dated!December!9,!2010!and!November!21,!2011,!Wells!Fargo!acknowledged!

that!payments!had!been!wrongly!rejected!and!made!promises!to!correct!the!

problem.!!Nevertheless,!the!misapplication!of!payments!continued.!Wells!Fargo’s!

records!do!not!accurately!reflect!the!payments!made!by!the!Shedds.!!Wells!Fargo!has!

incorrectly!reported!the!amount!of!annual!mortgage!interest!paid!by!the!Shedds!and!

has!made!erroneous!reports!to!credit!reporting!agencies!regarding!the!status!of!

their!account.!!Wells!Fargo!improperly!released!the!account!to!collections!and!has!

caused!collections!calls!to!be!made!to!the!Shedds.

Plaintiffs’!claims!arising!from!these!events!are!set!forth!on!the!following!

chart:

Count Cause#of#Action Defendants

One Breach!of!Contract All

Two Breach!of!Duty!of!Good!Faith!&!Fair!

Dealing All

Three Breach!of!Fiduciary!Duty Wells!Fargo

Four Wantonness Wells!Fargo

Five Fraud Wells!Fargo

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 3 Wells!Fargo!had!used!the!vendor!before!and!knew!of!the!problems!vendor’s!

loan!servicing!software.!!

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 4 of 31
5

Six Promissory!Fraud Wells!Fargo

Seven Fraudulent!

Suppression/Concealment Wells Fargo,!Barclays

Eight Unconscionability All

Nine Unjust!Enrichment Wells!Fargo,!Barclays

Ten Accounting Wells!Fargo,!Barclays

Eleven RESPA!§2605(m) Wells!Fargo

Twelve RESPA!§!2605(e) Wells!Fargo

Thirteen FCRA Wells!Fargo

Fourteen TILA Wells!Fargo,!Monument

Fifteen TILA Wells!Fargo,!Monument

Sixteen FDCPA Wells!Fargo,!Monument

III.##Legal#Analysis

Wells!Fargo!and!Monument!have!moved!to!dismiss!each!cause!of!action

against!them!for!failure!to!state!a!claim!upon!which!relief!can!be!granted. 4!!In!

addition,!these!Defendants!allege!that!Plaintiff!George!Shedd!lacks!standing!to!assert!

a!claim!for!breach!of!contract!or!a!claim!under!RESPA,!TILA,!or!FDCPA. Defendants!

also!move!to!dismiss!fictitious!parties!from!this!action.!!Below,!the!Court!addresses!

fictitious!parties!and!the!standing!issue!before!tackling!Defendants’!arguments!with!

respect!to!each!cause!of!action.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4 The!standard!for!reviewing!a!Rule!12(b)(6)!motion!to!dismiss!was!set!forth!

in!the!Court’s!November!17,!2014!order!(Doc.!34)!and!need!not!be!repeated!in!detail!

here.!!Suffice!it!to!say,!facts!pleaded!in!the!complaint!are!taken!as!true!but!

conclusions!are!not.!!Randall#v.#Scott,!610!F.3d!701,!709D10!(11th Cir.!2010).!!!A!court!

must!take!the!factual!allegations!as!true!and!determine!whether!they!plausibly!give!

rise!to!a!claim!for!relief.!!!Id. at!710.

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 5 of 31
6

A.##Fictitious#Parties

“As!a!general!matter,!fictitiousDparty!pleading!is!not!permitted!in!federal!

court.”!Richardson#v.#Johnson,!598 F.3d!734,!738!(11th!Cir.!2010).!!Plaintiffs!do!not!

dispute!this!proposition.!!Fictitious!parties!shall!be!dismissed.!!

B.##George#Shedd’s#Standing

Defendants!argue!that!George!Shedd!does!not!have!standing!to!pursue!a!state!

law!claim!for!breach!of!contract!or!federal!claims!under!RESPA,!TILA,!or!FDCPA!

because!he!did!not!sign,!and!therefore!was!not!obligated!to!repay,!the!promissory!

note.!!In!response, Plaintiffs!argue!that!George!Shedd!was!a!party!to!the!Chapter!11!

Plan!that!“created!a!new!contract!between!George!and!the!Defendants!related#to#the

mortgage.”!!(Pls.’!Rsp. 8,!Doc.!91,!emphasis!added.)!!Alternatively,!at!least!with!

respect!to!the!breach!of contract!claim,!Plaintiffs!argue!that!George!Shedd was!a!

thirdDparty!beneficiary!of!the!Chapter!11!Plan!because!the!Plan!allowed!him!to!stay!

in!the!family!home!as!long!as!the!payments!were!made!as!required.!!Neither!of!these!

theories,!if!proven,!demonstrates standing.!

To!establish!standing!to!sue!under!either!federal!or!state!law,!a!plaintiff!must!

prove!that!he!himself!has!suffered!an!actual!or!threatened!injury!to!a!legally!

protected!right.!!Warth#v.#Seldin,!422!U.S.!490,!498D99!(1975);! Bernals,#Inc.#v.#

Kessler:Greystone,#LLC,#70!So.3d!315,!319 (Ala.!2011).!!Plaintiffs!assert!that!“George!

has!suffered!injuries!as!mortgagor!by!Wells!Fargo!Defendants!adding!unnecessary!

costs;!withholding!escrow;!suspending!and!refusing!to!make!timely!payments!to!

reduce!the!mortgage!debt;!interfering!with!his!ability!to!refinance!at!a!much!lower!

interest!rate;!not!providing!the!proper!Form!1098!mortgage!interest!deductions!for!

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 6 of 31
7

the!taxes!he!files!each!year;!and!other![unspecified]!damages.”!!(Pls.’!Rsp.!at!8.)!!Each!

of!these injuries!relates!to!and!arises!from!the!obligation!of!the!borrower to!pay!

principal,!interest,!and!fees!under!the!promissory!note.!!

George!Shedd!is not!a!borrower!under!the!note,!and!the!Chapter!11!Plan did!

not!change!that!fact.!!First,!George!Shedd’s!designation!as!“Borrower”!under!the!

mortgage!does!not!make!him!a!borrower!under!the!promissory!note.!!The!mortgage!

itself!specifically!precludes!that!possibility:

Any!borrower!who!coDsigns!this!Security!Instrument!but!does!not!

execute!the!Note!(a)!is!coDsigning!this!Security Instrument!only!to!

mortgage,!grant!and!convey!that!Borrower’s!interest!in!the!Property!

under!the!terms!of!this!Security!Instrument;!(b)!is#not#personally#

obligated#to#pay#the#sums#secured#by#this#Security#Instrument;!and!(c)!

agrees!that Lender!and!any!other!Borrower!may!agree!to!extend!

modify,!forbear!or!make!any!accommodations!with!regard!to!the!

terms!of!this!Security!Instrument!or!the!Note!without!the!Borrower’s!

consent.

(Ex.!A.,!Wells!Fargo!Defs.’!Mot.!to!Dismiss!FAC,!Doc!15D1,!emphasis!added.)!!The!

Chapter!11!Plan!could!not!and!did!not!modify!George!Shedd’s!obligations!under!the!

Note!because!he!had!none. 5

Plaintiffs!argue!that!George!Shedd!became a!“borrower”!as!a!result!of!the!

proceedings!in the bankruptcy!court.!!Specifically,!Plaintiffs!state!that!George!Shedd!

“was!an!obligated!Chapter!11!debtor!under!the!April!2008!Agreed!Order!and!the!

July!2008!confirmed!Chapter!11!Plan,”!which!required the!“debtors”!to!pay!$306.62!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5Furthermore,!as!Defendants!point!out,!the!bankruptcy!code!prevents!a!

bankruptcy!court!from!modifying!the!terms!of!a!loan!secured!by!a!mortgage!on!

debtor’s!primary!residence.!!11!U.S.C.!§!1123(b)(5).!!This!antiDmodification!

provision!does,!however,!allow!a!plan!to!“cure”!an!arrearage,!which!was!the!purpose!

of!the!$306.62!payments.!!See#In#re#Litton,!330!F.3d!636,!644D45!(interpreting!

Chapter!13’s!antimodification!provision).

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 7 of 31
8

per!month!to!cure!the!arrearage.!!(Pl.’s!Resp.!9,!Doc.!91.)!!!But!that!arrearage!was!

related!to!the!note,!which!was!solely!the!debt!of!Pamela!Shedd.!!Even!though a!

husband!and!wife!file!a!joint!bankruptcy!petition,!their!estates!remain!separate.!!In#

re#Olien,!256!B.R.!280,!283!(Bankr.!E.D.!Tenn.!2000);!11!U.S.C. §!302.!!Unless!the!

bankruptcy!court!ordered!the!estates!consolidated!(and!there!is!no!allegation!here!

that!it!did),!“’joint!administration!has!no!impact!on!the!legal!rights!of!the!Debtor,!

Creditors,!or!the!Trustee.’”!!Id. (quoting!In#re#Cash,!No.!91D60968,!1994!WL!732826,!

*2!(Bankr.!N.D.!Ohio!Dec.!15,!1994)).!!Thus,!the!bankruptcy!court!could!not!have!

created!a!legal!right!in!favor!of!the!creditor!where!none!existed.!!!Despite!the!

references!to!“debtors”!in!relation!to!payment!of!the!arrearage,!the!Agreed!Order!

and!the!confirmed!Plan!did!not!create!an!obligation!on!the!part!of!George!Shedd!to!

pay!a!debt!that!was!not!his.

George!Shedd!has!no!standing!to!pursue!a!breach!of!contract!claim!because!

he!has!not!alleged!damage!resulting!from!a!contract!to!which!he was!a!party.6!!

Likewise,!he!has!no standing!to!sue!under!RESPA,!TILA,!or!FDCPA.! RESPA!provides!

that!“[w]hoever!fails!to!comply!with!any!provision!of!this!section!shall!be!liable!to!

the!borrower.”!!12!U.S.C.!§!2605(f) (emphasis!added).!!TILA!and!FDCPA!protect!

“consumers” from!certain!practices!by!lenders!and!debt!collectors.!!See Johnson#v.#

Ocwen#Loan#Servicing,#374!Fed.!Appx.!868,!874!(11th Cir.!2010)!(plaintiff!who!was!

not!a!party!to!loan!had!no!standing!to!sue!under!RESPA,!TILA!or!FDCPA);!Coleman#v.#

IndyMac#Venture,#LLC,!966!F.Supp.2d!759!(W.D.!Tenn.!2013)!(husband!who!signed!

deed!of!trust!but!did!not!sign!promissory!note lacked!standing!under!FDCPA);!cf.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 6 George!Shedd!was!a!party!to!the!mortgage!contract,!but!all!damages!

asserted!arise!from!alleged!breaches!of!the!Note.

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 8 of 31
9

Tower#v.#Moss,#625!F.2d!1161,!1166 (5th Cir.!1980)!(TILA’s!disclosure!requirements!

apply!to!consumer!credit!transactions!“’in!which!the!party!to!whom!credit!is!offered!

is!a!natural!person’”).

C.#Breach#of#Contract (Count#One)

Defendants!raise!two!types!of!arguments!with!respect!to!the!breach!of!

contract!claim.!!First,!they!argue!that!Wells!Fargo!cannot!be!held!liable!for!breach!of!

contract!because!the!facts!alleged!in!the!SAC!do not!support!the!legal!conclusion!that!

it!entered!into!a!contract!with!Plaintiffs.7!!One!of!the!fundamental!requirements!of!a!

breach!of!contract!claim!is!“’the!existence!of!a!valid!contract!binding!the!parties!in!

the!action.’”!!Webb#v.#Ocwen#Loan#Servicing,#LLC,!No.!11D00732DKDDM,!2012!WL!

5906729,!*8!(S.D.!Ala.!Nov.!26,!2012)!(quoting!Poole#v.#Prince,!61!So.3d!258,!274!

(Ala.!2010)).!!Plaintiffs!point!to!paragraph!40!of!the!SAC!as!support!for!the!existence!

of!a!valid!contract!between!Plaintiffs!and!Wells!Fargo,!but!that!paragraph!alleges!

only!that!Wells!Fargo!“acquired!the!loan!servicing!effective!September!1,!2010.”!!

Based!on!that!allegation!and!Wells!Fargo’s!actions!as!servicer (e.g.,!letters!regarding!

the!debt,!acknowledgements!that!it!had!failed!to!comply!with!bankruptcy!Plan),!

Plaintiffs!contend!they!have!pled!facts!to!support!the!existence!of!a!contract!

between!themselves!and!Wells!Fargo.!!!However,!the!existence!of!a!valid!contract!

entails:!“!‘an!offer!and!an!acceptance,!consideration,!and!mutual!assent!to!terms!

essential!to!the!formation!of!a!contract.’!”!Webb,#at!*8 (citations!omitted).!!Wallace#v.#

SunTrust#Mortgage,#Inc.,!974!F.!Supp.!2d!1358,!1368!(S.D.!Ala.!2013)!(quoting!

Shaffer#v.#Regions#Financial#Corp.,!29!So. 3d!872,!880!(Ala.2009)).!Wells!Fargo!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 7 Plaintiffs!concede!that!they!cannot!rely!on!a!thirdDparty!beneficiary!theory!

to!establish!a!breach!of!contract!claim!against!Wells!Fargo.

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 9 of 31
10

entered!the!picture!as!a!mortgage!servicer!in!2010,!years!after!the!contracts!on!

which!the!Plaintiffs!rely—the!Note!and!the Chapter!11!Plan—were!entered!into.!!

Plaintiffs!factual!allegations!do!not!explain!how!Wells!Fargo!could!have!entered!into!

a!valid!contract!that!predated!Wells!Fargo’s!involvement!in!the!servicing!of!

Plaintiffs’!loan.!!Therefore,!Plaintiffs’!breach!of!contract!claim!against!Wells!Fargo!is!

due!to!be!dismissed.

Defendants!also!argue!that the!SAC!does!not!support!a!breach!of!contract!

claim!against!either!Wells!Fargo!or!Monument!because!Plaintiffs!have!failed!to!

allege!facts!that!would!demonstrate!a!breach!of!any!contractual!provision.!!That!

argument!requires!factual!analysis!that!is!unsuited!for!a!motion!to!dismiss.!!

D.#Breach#of#Contractual#Duty#of#Good#Faith#&#Fair#Dealing (Count#Two)

Plaintiffs’!claim!for!breach!of!the!duty!of!good!faith!and!fair!dealing!as!set!

forth!in!the!FAC!was!dismissed!for!failure to!state!a!claim.!!Plaintiffs!argue!that!the!

SAC!has!supplied!the!necessary!facts!to!support!a!cause!of!action.!!This!Court!

previously!set!out!the!law!regarding!this!claim!as!follows:

Alabama!recognizes!that!every!contract!carries!an!implied!obligation!

of good!faith!and!fair!dealing,!which!has!been!defined!as!“an!implied!

covenant!that!neither!party!shall!do!anything!which!will!have!the!

effect!of!destroying!or!injuring!the!rights!of!the!other!party!to!receive!

the!fruits!of!the!contract.”!!Lloyd#Noland#Found.,#Inc.#v.#City#of#Fairfield#

Healthcare#Auth.,!837!So.!2d!253,!267!(Ala.!2002)!(quoting!Seller#v.#

Head,!261!Ala.!212,!217,!73!So.2d!747,!751!(1954)).!!The!parameters!

of!this!claim!have!not!been!well!defined.!However,!it!is!clear!that!the!

obligation!is!not!actionable!unless!the!breach!of!that!duty!can!be!tied!

to!the!performance!of!a!specific!term!of!the!contract.!!Lake#

Martin/Alabama#Power#Licensee#Assoc.#v.#Alabama#Power#Co.,#Inc.,!601!

So.!2d!942,!945!(Ala.!1992).!!More!specifically,!Alabama!courts!have!

recognized!the!duty!of!good!faith!and!fair!dealing!when!“the!contract!

fails!to!specify!all!the!duties!and!obligations!intended!to!be!assumed.”!

Lloyd#Noland#Found., 837!So.2d!at!267. In!those!instances,!“the law!will!

imply!an!agreement!to!do!those!things!that!according!to!reason!and!

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 10 of 31
11

justice!the!parties!should!do!in!order!to!carry!out!the!purpose!for!

which!the!contract!was!made.”!Id.

(Order!dated!Nov.!17,!2014!at!7D8,!Doc.!34.)

In!response!to!Defendants’!motion!to!dismiss,!Plaintiffs!have!failed!to!point!to!

any!allegation!in!the!SAC!that!would!tie!their!claim!to!any!specific!contractual!term.!!

Instead,!they!point!to!allegations!that!the!Defendants!failed!to!comply!with!implied

requirements!of the!Chapter!11!Plan!that!they!bring!the!loan!current!and!that!they!

create!a!separate!arrearage!account.!!Because!Plaintiffs’!SAC!does!not!allege!a!breach!

of!duty!related!to!any!specific!contractual!term,!their!claim!for!breach!of!implied!

duty!of!good!faith!and!fair!dealing!is!due!to!be!dismissed.

E.#Breach#of#Fiduciary#Duty (Count#Three)

Wells!Fargo,!the!only!defendant!against!whom!the!breach!of!fiduciary!duty!

claim!is!asserted,!argues!that!the!facts!alleged!in!the!SAC!do!not!give!rise!to!a!

fiduciary!relationship!between!Plaintiffs!and!Wells!Fargo.!!!Under!Alabama!law,!

“[the]!relationship!between!a!bank!and!its!customer!![is!considered]!.!.!.!!a!creditorD

debtor!relationship!that!does!not!impose!a!fiduciary!duty!on!the!bank.”!!K#&#C#Dev.#

Corp.#v.#AmSouth#Bank,#N.A.,!597!So. 2d!671,!675!(Ala.!1992).!!Since!the!relationship!

between!a!debtor!and!a!mortgage!servicer!is!nearly!identical!to!that!of!creditorD

debtor,!the!same!rule!logically!extends!to!the!debtorDmortgage!servicer!relationship.!!

Selman#v.#CitiMortgage,#Inc.,!No.!12D0441,!2013!WL!838193,!*10!(S.D.!Ala.!March!5,!

2013).!!Alabama!law!does!recognize,!however,!that!a!fiduciary!relationship!might!

arise!if!the!facts!demonstrate!a!special!relationship!between!the!parties.!!K#&#C#Dev.,!

597!So.!2d!at!675.!!For!example,!one who!occupies!a!position!of!trust!or!who!

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 11 of 31
12

“purports!to!act!or!advise!with!the!other’s!interest!in!mind”!and!“thereby!gains!an!

influence!or!superiority!over!the!other”!is!considered!to!be!a!fiduciary.!!

Plaintiffs!contend!that!this!case!does!not!involve!a!typical!debtorDmortgage!

servicer!relationship!and!that!the!circumstances!created!a!special!relationship!

between!Plaintiffs!and!Wells!Fargo.!In!support!of!this!contention,!they cite!letters!

and!telephone!calls!from!Wells!Fargo!to!Plaintiffs!threatening!to accelerate!the!debt!

and!to!foreclose,!which!resulted!in!Plaintiffs’!“counsel!warn[ing]!Wells!Fargo!that!

[Plaintiffs]!would!sue!if!Wells!Fargo!took!such!steps.”!!(Pl.’s!Resp.!Br.!16,!Doc.!91.)!!!

Plaintiffs!also!point!out!Wells!Fargo’s!acknowledgement!of!numerous!mistakes!in!

servicing!their!account!and!its!many!broken!promises!to!fix!the!problems.!!All!of!

these!facts!relate!to!the!Wells!Fargo’s!servicing!of!the!mortgage!and!do!not show!

that!Wells!Fargo!had!a!special!relationship!with!Plaintiffs.!!To!the!contrary,!that!

Plaintiffs!dealt!with!Wells!Fargo!through!counsel!belies!any!assertion!that!Wells!

Fargo!occupied!a!position!of!trust,!influence,!or!superiority.!!This!claim!is!due!to!be!

dismissed.

F.#Wantonness##(Count#Four)

Count!Four!of!the!SAC!alleges!that!Wells!Fargo!acted!wantonly!in!that!it!

promised!to!keep!the!bankruptcy!workstation!open!so!that!it!could!accept!payments!

and!stop!the!collection!calls!to!Plaintiffs!but!instead:

• Reported!Plaintiffs!as!delinquent!to!credit!reporting!agencies,!

• Continued!collection!calls,!

• Failed!to!keep!the!bankruptcy!workstation!open,!

• Continued!to!misallocate!payments!and!assess!fees,!

• Improperly!reported!mortgage!interest!deductions!on!Plaintiffs’!198!forms

• Failed!to!properly!apply!payments

• Wrongfully!forceDplaced!hazard!insurance!in!excessive!amounts

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 12 of 31
13

• Caused!other!damages!as!detailed!above

(SAC!¶79.)!Wells!Fargo!points out!that!Alabama!law!does!not!recognize!a!cause!of!

action!for!wanton!mortgage!servicing!where!the!alleged!injury!is!purely!economic.!!

Plaintiffs!do!not!disagree!with!that!legal!proposition!but!argue!that!they!pleaded!

noneconomic!damages!(emotional distress)!by!incorporation.!!In!addition!to!its!

reference!to!“other!damages!set!out!above,”8 Count!Four!includes!a!demand!for!

damages!for!emotional!distress.!!Thus,!the!Court!finds!the!pleading!sufficient.!

The!current!state!of!the!law!in!Alabama!regarding!wantonness!claims!against!

a!mortgage!servicer!has!been!summed!up!as!follows:

“[N]umerous!recent!authorities!have!held!that!Alabama!law!does!not!

recognize!a!cause of!action!for!negligent!or!wanton!servicing!of!a!

mortgage!that#results#in#economic#damages.#.!.!.”

“To!be!sure,!this!line!of!cases!leaves!open!the!possibility!of!a!

cognizable!claim!for!negligent/wanton!mortgage!servicing!in!cases!

involving!personal!injury!or!property!damage.”!!.!.!.!!Givens!points!out!

that!she!has!alleged,!and!presented!evidence!of,!personal!injury!in!the!

form!of!mental!anguish.!However,!“[t]his!allegation!does!not!save![her!

negligence!claims]!by!bringing!‘personal!injury’!damages!into!play.!

After!all,!Alabama!law!forbids!‘[d]amages!for!mental!anguish!...!for!

negligence!except!when!the!plaintiff!has!suffered!a!physical!injury!as!a!

result!of!the!negligent!conduct!or!was!placed!in!an!immediate!risk!of!

physical!injury!by!that!conduct.’!.!.!.![Givens]'s!allegations!in!h[er]!

pleading!do!not!satisfy!this!threshold,!and![s]he!has!identified!no!

evidence!in!the!summary!judgment!record!that!would!do!so;!

therefore,!mental!anguish!damages!are!unavailable!with!respect!to!

[her!negligence!claims].”!.!.!.!

Wantonness,!however,!is!a!separate!issue.!The!Alabama!Court!of!Civil!

Appeals!recently!held!that!while!proof!of!physical!injury!or!being!

placed!in!immediate!risk!of!physical!injury!is!required!to!recover!

mental!anguish!damages!on!a!claim!for!negligence, such!proof!is!not!

required!for!mental!anguish!damages!on!a!wantonness!claim.!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8 In!the!“Facts”!portion!of!the!SAC,!Plaintiffs!assert!that!Wells!Fargo’s!actions!

caused!Plaintiffs!“great!distress,!great!emotional!and!mental!anguish!and!upset.”!!

(SAC!¶!55.)

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 13 of 31
14

Givens#v.#Saxon#Mortgage#Servs.,#Inc.,!Civil!Action!No. 13D00245DKDDN,!2014!WL!

2452891,!at!*13D15 (S.D.!Ala.!June!2,!2014) (DuBose,!J.)!(quoting!Quinn#v.#Deutsche#

Bank#Nat.#Trust#Co.,!Civil!Action!No.!13–0115–WS–C,!2014!WL!977632,!at!*6!(S.D.

Ala.!Mar.!12,!2014)!(Steele,!C.J.))!(emphasis!added)!(internal!quotations!and!

citations!omitted).

As!Judge!Steele!noted!in!Quinn,!“this!line!of!cases!leaves!open!the!possibility!

of!a!cognizable!claim!for!negligent/wanton!mortgage!servicing!in!cases!involving!

personal!injury!or!property!damage.”!Id.!*6!“n.!17.!!And!as!Judge!DuBose!

subsequently!found!in!Givens,#proof!of!mental!anguish!may!be!sufficient!evidence!of!

personal!injury!to!support!a!claim!for!wantonness.9 Id. Plaintiffs!in!this!case!have!

asserted!a!claim!for!wantonness!supported!by factual!allegations of!mental!anguish.!!

This!is!sufficient!to!state!a!claim.

G.#Fraud &#Promissory#Fraud (Counts#Five#&#Six)

Although!Wells!Fargo!asserts!several!grounds!for!dismissing!Plaintiffs’!fraud!

and!promissory!fraud!claims,!the!Court!need!address!only!one.!!Wells!Fargo!argues!

that!Plaintiffs!have!failed!to!adequately!plead!an!essential!element!of!both!claims—

detrimental!reliance.10!!

The!law!of!fraud!is!wellDsettled.!An!essential!element!of!any!fraud!

claim!is!that!the!plaintiff!must!have!reasonably!relied!on!the!alleged!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 9 In!that!case,!which!was!before!the!court!on!summary!judgment,!the!court!

found that!Givens!had!failed!to!present!sufficient!evidence!demonstrating!an!issue!of!

fact!as!to!whether!the!defendant!acted!wantonly!in!servicing!her!mortgage.!!Givens,!

2014!WL!at!*16.

10 Actually,!detrimental!reliance!is!two!elements—reasonable!reliance!and!

damages!proximately!caused!by!that!reliance.

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 14 of 31
15

misrepresentation.!Section!6–5–101,!Ala.Code!1975,!provides!that!

“[m]isrepresentations!of!a!material!fact!made!willfully!to!deceive,!or!

recklessly!without!knowledge,!and!acted!on!by!the!opposite!party!...!

constitute!legal!fraud.”!Thus,!reliance!in!the!form!that!the!

misrepresentation!is!“acted!on!by!the!opposite!party”!is!an!essential!

element!of!fraud!in!Alabama.!

Hunt#Petroleum#Corp.#v.#State,!901!So.!2d!1,!4!(Ala.!2004)!(some!internal!quotations!

omitted).!!Moreover,!“’[w]here!a!plaintiff!seeks!to!recover!because!of!the!fraud!of!the!

defendants,!based!upon!false!representations,!it!is!incumbent!upon!him!to!allege!

and!prove!what!representations!were!made,!that!they!were!false,!that!he!believed!

them!to!be!true,!and!that!he!relied!and!acted!upon!them!to!his!detriment.’!”!Id.

(quoting!with!approval!Nichols#v.#Kansas#Political#Action#Comm.,!270!Kan.!37,!53,!11!

P.3d!1134,!1146!(2000)).!!“It!is!fundamental!to!an!action!for!fraud!that!the!plaintiff!

must!have!relied!to!his!detriment!on!the!alleged!misrepresentation.!In!the!absence!

of!proof!of!reliance,!a!plaintiff's!fraud!claim!must!fail!as!a!matter!of!law.”

Sanders#v.#Kirkland#&#Co., 510!So.!2d!138,!142!(Ala.!1987)!Detrimental!reliance!is!

also!essential!to!a!claim!of promissory!fraud.!!See Wade v.#Chase#Manhattan#Mortg.#

Corp.,!994!F.!Supp.!1369,!1379!(N.D.!Ala.!1997)!(promissory!fraud!requires!proof!of!

four!elements!of!fraud!plus!two!additional!elements).

Plaintiffs’!allegation of!detrimental!reliance!falls short. Plaintiffs!make!only!

one!assertion regarding!their!reliance!on!Wells!Fargo’s!alleged!misrepresentations:!!

“Wells!Fargo!intended!that!Plaintiffs!rely!on!the!above!false!statements,!which!they!

reasonably!did!to!their!detriment,!in#continuing#to#make#monthly#payments#to#Wells#

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 15 of 31
16

Fargo[.]” (SAC!¶!88,!emphasis!added.)11 This!allegation!is!insufficient!to!support!

recovery!for!fraud!because!those!monthly!payments!were!required!by!the!

promissory!note!and!the!Chapter!11 Plan.!!“A!representation!in!an!arm's!length!

transaction!that!causes!a!person!to!do!nothing!more!than!he!was!legally!obligated!to!

do!without!such!a!representation!being!made,!is!not!material!and!therefore!cannot!

constitute!actionable!fraud.”!!Reeves#v.#Porter,!521!So.!2d!963,!967!(Ala.!1988).!!

Stated!differently,!“’[a] person!who!is!induced!by!false!representations!to!do!what!

his!legal!duty!requires!him!to!do!cannot!recover!therefor,!because!he!suffers!no!legal!

injury.’”!Id.#(quoting!37!Am.Jur.2d!Fraud!and!Deceit,!§!283,!at 379!(1968)).!!Because!

the!facts!alleged!do!not!support!Plaintiffs’!assertion!that!they!relied!on!the!alleged!

misrepresentations!to!their!detriment,!Plaintiffs!have!failed!to!state!a!claim!for!fraud!

or a!claim!for!promissory!fraud.

H.#Fraudulent#Suppression#(Count#Seven)

Plaintiffs’!fraudulent!suppression!claim!fails!for!a!different!reason,!that!is,!a!

party!cannot!be!held!liable!for!suppressing!information!it!had!no!duty!to!disclose.

The!first!element of!a!fraudulent!suppression!claim!requires!

the!showing!of!a!duty!to!disclose.!!“In!the!absence!of!special!

circumstances,!Alabama!law!considers!the!lenderDborrower!

relationship!to!be!armsDlength!and!does!not!place!a!duty!of!disclosure!

on!the!lender.”!

Branch#Banking#&#Trust#Co.#v.#EBR#Investments#LLC,! Civil!Action!No.!2:14DCDV01578D

WMA,!2015!WL!225457,!at!*3!(N.D.!Ala.!Jan.!16,!2015) (quoting!Buckentin#v.#

SunTrust#Mortgage#Corp.,!928!F.Supp.2d!1273,!1285!(N.D.Ala.2013)).!!“When!both!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 11 In!their!cause!of!action!for!promissory!fraud,!Plaintiffs!allege!no!specific!

facts!regarding!reliance,!stating!only!“Plaintiffs!reasonably!relied!upon!the!above!

representations!to!their!detriment,!as!detailed!above[.]”!!(SAC!¶!92.)!!

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 16 of 31
17

parties!are!intelligent!and!fully!capable!of!taking!care!of!themselves!and!dealing!at!

arm’s!length,!with!no!confidential!relationship,!no!duty!to!disclose!exists!when!

information!is!not!requested,!and!mere!silence!is!not!a!fraud.”!!Bank#of#Red#Bay#v.

King,!482!So.!2d!274,!285D86 (1985).!!!The!relationship!of!Plaintiffs!and!Wells!Fargo!

is!akin!to!that!of!lenderDborrower;!therefore,!Plaintiffs!must!plead!facts!from!which!

a!special!relationship!could!be!inferred.!!

In!response!to!the!motion!to!dismiss,!Plaintiffs!argue!that!the!duty!to!disclose!

arose!from!(a)!Wells!Fargo’s!knowledge!of!the!internal!problems!it!had!encountered!

with!Plaintiffs’!account!and!similar!accounts!and!(b)!litigation!in!other!courts!in!

involving!Wells!Fargo’s!treatment!of!accounts!involving!bankruptcy!debtors.!!At!

most,!these!facts!merely!establish!that!Wells!Fargo!knew!of!problems!with!its!

internal!operating!system.!!However, superior!knowledge!does!not!amount!to!

special!circumstances!imposing!a!duty!to!disclose.!!Surrett#v.#TIG#Premier#Ins.#Co.,!

869!F.!Supp.!919,!924D25!(M.D.!Ala!1994);!see#also##Mason#v.#Chrysler#Corp.,!653!So.!

2d!951,!954D55!(Ala.!1995) (dealership’s!knowledge!of!recurring!defect!in!

automobile!model!purchased!by!customer!did!not!give!rise!to!duty!to!disclose).!!In!

sum,!the!factual!allegations!of!the!SAC!do!not!support!a!claim!for!fraudulent!

suppression!or!concealment.!!

I.# Unconscionability (Count#Eight)

Plaintiffs!provide!little,!if!any,!opposition!to!Defendants’ motion!to!dismiss!

this!claim.12!!In!this!cause!of!action,!Plaintiffs!seeks: (1)!to!have “the!servicing!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 12 One!paragraph!of!Plaintiffs’!twoDparagraph!response!on!this!issue!states:!

“The!Shedds!raise!unconscionability!to!highlight!the!unequal!bargaining!power!

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 17 of 31
18

contracts!and!insurance!contracts![!] rescinded,” (2)!recovery!of!“recompense!for!

emotional!distress,”!and!(3)“restoration!of!Plaintiffs’!credit!rating.”!!(SAC!¶!105.)!!

“The!doctrine!of!unconscionability!does!not!provide!affirmative!relief.”!Layne#v.#

Garner,!612!So.!2d!404,!408!(Ala.!1992).!!Therefore,!any!claim!for!recompense!or!

restoration!necessarily!fails.!!More!importantly,!Plaintiffs!cannot!succeed!on!their!

claim!because!they!have!not!alleged!that!they!were parties!to!either!of!the!contracts

they!identify!as!unconscionable.!!The!mortgage!servicing!contract!was between

Wells!Fargo!and!Monument.!!The!insurance!referred!to!is!the!forceDplaced!insurance!

obtained!by!Wells!Fargo.!!By!definition,!Plaintiffs!were!not!parties!to!forceDplaced!

insurance contracts,!i.e.,!insurance!forced!upon!them!without!their!consent.!!

Plaintiffs’!unconscionability!cause!of!action!is,!therefore,!due!to!be!dismissed.!!

K.##Unjust#Enrichment (Count#Nine)##

Unjust!enrichment!is!an!equitable!remedy!requiring!the!plaintiff!“[to]!show!

that!the!defendant!holds!money!which,!in!equity!and!good!conscience,!belongs!to!!!!

the!plaintiff!or!holds!money!which!was!improperly!paid!to!defendant!because!of!

mistake!or!fraud.”!!Avis#Rent#A#Car#Sys.#v.#Heilman,!876!So.!2d!1111,!1122D23!(Ala.!

2003).!!!Count!Nine!asserts!a!laundry!list!of!ways!in!which!Wells!Fargo!was!unjustly!

enriched,!most!of!which!Plaintiffs!do!not!address!in!their!response!to!the!motion!to!

dismiss.!!Some!involve!no!exchange!of!money!and,!therefore,!cannot!support!a!claim.!!

For!example,!Plaintiffs!allege!that!Wells!Fargo!promised!and!failed!to!keep!the!

bankruptcy!workstation!open!and!to!stop!collection!calls,!attempted to!assert!late!

fees,!increased the!amount!of!mortgage!loan!debt!by!adding!late!fees!and!other!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

between!the!parties,!as!well!as!patently!unfair!terms!as!detailed!in!the!SAC.”! (Pls.’!

Br.!27,!Doc.!91.)

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 18 of 31
19

charges,!and caused!the!Plaintiffs!to!be!unable!to!refinance!their!loan.!!(SAC ¶!105.)!!

Similarly,!Plaintiffs’ claim!that!Wells!Fargo!was!unjustly!enrichment!because!it!

“enjoyed!the!use”!of!Plaintiffs’!monthly!payments!falls!short.!!Plaintiffs!were!

obligated!to!make those!payments!by!the!terms!of!the!promissory!note!and!the!

Chapter!11!Plan.!!Plaintiffs’!dispute!is!whether!those!payments!were!properly!

applied,!not!whether!they!were!improperly!paid.!

In!fact,!Plaintiffs’!response!addresses!only!one!basis!for!unjust!enrichment—

forceDplaced!insurance!premiums.!!Count!Nine!alleges!that!Wells!Fargo!“forceD

placed!insurance!on!Plaintiffs’!property!and!charged!Plaintiffs!premiums!in!which,!

upon!information!and!belief,!Defendants!have!benefitted!through!shared!premiums,!

commissions!or!otherwise.”!(Id.)!!Plaintiffs’!response!brief!states!the!claim!

differently,!i.e.,!“the!Shedds!suffered!damage!because!Wells!Fargo!Defendants!

colluded!with!the!insurer!to!extend!coverage!amounts!in!excess!of!that!necessary!to!

protect!Wells!Fargo Defendants’!interest!in!the!house.”!!(Pls.’!Br.!29,!Doc.!91.)!!

Neither!of!these!assertions!make!clear!exactly!how!Wells!Fargo!was!unjustly!

enriched.! Both claims!are precluded!by!the!mortgage!contract,!which!permitted!

Wells!Fargo!to!determine!the!amount!of!coverage!and!to!obtain!coverage!if!Plaintiffs!

did!not.13 !!Even!if!Wells!Fargo!may!have!obtained!an!unintended!benefitted!from!

the!premiums,!payment!of!those!premiums!was!a!contractual!obligation!and,!

therefore,!was!not!obtained!by!fraud!or!coercion.!!Plaintiffs’!claim!for!unjust!

enrichment!fails.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 13 The!mortgage!contract required!that!insurance!“be!maintained!in!the!

amounts!and!for!the!periods!that!Lender!requires”!and!further!gave!the!Lender!the!

option!to!“to!obtain!coverage!to!protect!Lender’s!rights!in!the!Property”!if!Plaintiffs!

failed!to!do!so.!!(Mortg.!3,!Ex.!A,!Doc.!15D1)

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 19 of 31
20

L.#Accounting (Count#Ten)

Count!Ten!asserts!a!separate!claim!for!an!accounting!of!mortgage!interest!

and!amortization.!!In!general,!the!equitable!remedy!of!accounting!is!appropriate!

when!there!is!a!fiduciary!relationship!between!the!parties,!where!the!defendant!has!

engaged!in!fraud,!or!where!the!account!is!unusually!complicated!or!difficult.!!Givens#

v.#Saxon#Mortg.#Services,#Inc.,!Civil!Action!No.!13D00245DKDDN,!2014!WL!2452891!

(S.D.!Ala.!May!30,!2014).!!Wells!Fargo!argues!that!Plaintiffs’!claims!do!not!fall!into!

any!of!these!categories.!Plaintiffs!apparently!concede!this!claim,!since!they!have!not!

responded!to!Wells!Fargo’s!motion!on!this!point.!!In!any!event,!the!Court!finds!that!

the facts!alleged!in!the!SAC!do!not!support!a!claim!for!accounting.14

M.##RESPA—ForceWPlaced#Hazard#Insurance##(Count#Eleven)

Plaintiffs!have!asserted!several!claims!against!Wells!Fargo!under!the!Real!

Estate!Settlement!Procedures!Act!!(RESPA),!12!U.S.C.!§!2601!et#seq.,!as!amended!by!

Pub.L.!11D203,!125!Stat.!1376!(the!DoddDFrank!Wall!Street!Reform!and!Consumer!

Act!or!“DoddDFrank”).!!Count!Eleven!asserts!a!violation!of!12!U.S.C.!§!2605(k)!which!

requires!mortgage!servicers!to!comply!with!certain!notification!requirements!

regarding!forceDplaced!hazard!insurance.!!A!similar!claim!was!dismissed!from!the!

FAC!because!that!claim!was!based!on!acts!to!that!took!place!prior!to!January!10,!

2014,!the!date!§!2605(k)!became!effective.!!(Nov.!17,!2014!Order!at!14D15,!Doc.!34.)!!

In!the!SAC,!Plaintiffs!assert!that!Wells!Fargo!violated!!§!2605(k)!by!failing!to!comply!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 14 The!SAC!does!not!allege!facts!giving!rise!to!a!fiduciary!relationship,!supra#

at!10!or!fraud,!supra#at!14D16.!!While!the!mortgage!account!is!undoubtedly!

complicated,!it!is!unlikely!that!an!accounting!would!make!it!any!less!so!or!that!an!

accounting!would!accomplish!anything!that!could!not!be!accomplished!through!

discovery.

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 20 of 31
21

with!RESPA’s!forceDplaced!hazard!insurance!“[i]n!2014!after!§!2605(k)’s!effective!

date.”!!(SAC!¶!116.)!!

Wells!Fargo!argues!that!this!count!is!due!to!be!dismissed!because!documents!

attached!to!the!SAC!show!that!no!coverage!has!been!purchased!by!Wells!Fargo!after!

November!3,!2014.!!These!documents—a!summary!of!account!activity!and!a!

summary!of!escrow!disbursements!(pp.!22!&!26!Doc.!74D1)—do!not!provide!a!basis!

for!dismissal.!!The!former!shows!account!activity!from!October!2014!through!April!

17,!2014,!with!a!disbursement!for!hazard!insurance!in!November!2013.!!The!latter!

reflects!escrow!disbursements!from!November!2010!through!November!2014.!!

Neither!of!these!necessarily negates!the!possibility!that!Wells!Fargo!forceDplaced!

hazard!insurance!in!2014.!!This!is!an!issue!best!left!for!summary!judgment.15

N.##RESPA#Violation—Duty#to#Respond#to#Borrower#Inquiries (Count#Twelve)

RESPA!places!a!duty!on!a!loan!servicer!to!take!action!in!response!to!a!

borrower!inquiry!within!a!prescribed!time!period.!!U.S.C.!§!2605(e)(2).!!The!

borrower!inquiry!must!comply!with!certain!requirements!before!the!duty!is!

triggered.!!A!borrower!inquiry!that!meets!these!requirements!is!called!a!Qualified!

Written!Request!(QWR).!12!U.S.C.!§!2605(E)(1)(B).!! In!Count!Twelve,!Plaintiffs!

allege!four!separate!violations!of!§!2605(e)!based!on!four!separate!pieces!of!

correspondence!sent!by!Plaintiffs to!Wells!Fargo.!!Wells!Fargo!argues,!for!different!

reasons,!that!none!of!these!inquiries!support!a!claim!under!§!2605(e).!!Each!of!these!

arguments!will!be!addressed!separately.!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 15 Plaintiffs!volunteer!that!they!will!“relinquish!this!claim!on!summary!

judgment”!if!Wells!Fargo!provides!proof!that!it!did!not!force!place!any!coverage!in!

2014.!!(Pls.!Rsp.!28,!Doc.!91.)

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 21 of 31
22

1.##The#December#29,#2013#Facsimile

In!a!facsimile!addressed!to!Wells!Fargo!dated!December!29,!2013,!

Plaintiffs!made!the!following!request:

Please!forward!via!return!mail!a!complete!history of!all!payments

received!on!my!mortgage!account!(0508298213),!from!09/01/2010!

through!12/29/2013!as!soon!as!possible.

(Ex.!D!SAC!Doc.!74D1.)!!The!facsimile!included!the!mortgage!loan!number,!requested!

that!the response!be!sent!to!Pamela!Shedd,!and!provided!an!address.!!It!was!signed!

by!both!Pamela!Shedd!and!George!Shedd.!!Plaintiffs!allege!that!Wells!Fargo!violated!

§!2605(e)!by:!!(1) failing!to!respond!this!inquiry!and!(2) providing!information!

about!Plaintiffs!to!a!credit!reporting!agency!within!60!days!after the!inquiry.

Wells!Fargo!argues!that!this!inquiry!did!not!trigger!any!RESPA!duties!

because!the!facsimile!was!not!a!QWR.!!RESPA!defines!a!QWR!as!follows:

For!purposes!of!this!subsection,!a!qualified!written!request!shall!be!a!

written!correspondence,!other!than!notice!on!a!payment!coupon!or!

other!payment!medium!supplied!by!the!servicer,!that—

(i)!includes,!or!otherwise!enables!the!servicer!to!

identify,!the!name!and!account!of!the!borrower;!and

(ii)!includes!a!statement!of!the!reasons!for!the!belief!of!

the!borrower,!to!the!extent!applicable,!that!the!account!

is!in!error!or provides!sufficient!detail!to!the!servicer!

regarding!other!information!sought!by!the!borrower.

12!U.S.C.!§!2605(e)(1)(B)!(emphasis!added).!!Pointing!to!subsection!(ii),!Wells!Fargo!

contends!that!facsimile!cannot!be!a!QWR!because!it!does!not!include!“a!statement!of!

the!reasons!.!.!.!for!belief!that!the!account!is!in!error.”!!!That!argument!ignores!the!

alternative!language!in!that!subsection—“or!provides!sufficient!detail!regarding!

other!information!sought!by!the!borrower.”!!Plaintiffs’!facsimile!clearly!identified!

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 22 of 31
23

the!information!sought—a!complete!history!of!all!payments!received,!the!date!range!

of!the!information,!and!the!account!number.!!Because!it!provided!sufficient!detail!

regarding!the!information!sought,!the!facsimile!could!be!construed!as!a!Qualified!

Written!Request. Thepvongsa#v.#Reg'l#Tr.#Servs.#Corp.,!972!F.!Supp.!2d!1221,!1228!

(W.D.!Wash.!2013) (letter!was!QWR,!even!though!plaintiff!was!unaware!of!a!

particular!error!in!his!account,!because!“he!clearly!identified!documents!and!

categories!of!documents!that!he!sought!from!the!servicer”).!!See#also#Garcia#v.#

Wachovia#Mortgage#Corp.,!676!F.!Supp.!2d!895,!909!(C.D.!Cal.!2009) (letter!need!not!

identify!error!to!be!QWR).16!!Consequently,!Wells!Fargo’s!argument!for!dismissal!

fails.!!

2.##The#May#2,#2014#Letter

In!a!sevenDpage!letter!to!Wells!Fargo!dated!May!2,!2014,!Plaintiffs!provided!a!

detailed!statement!of!errors!in the!handling!of!their!account.17!!Plaintiffs!requested!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 16 Wells!Fargo!relies!on!Sirote#v.#BBVA#Compass#Bank,!857!F.!Supp.!2d!1213!

(N.D.!Ala.!2010),!for!the!proposition!that!an!inquiry!must!contain!a!statement!of!

believed!error!to!qualify!as!a!QWR.!!That!case!is!distinguishable,!however,!because!it!

was!not!clear!how!any!of!the!requested!information!“actually!relate[d]!to!the!

servicing!of!any!accounts,!as!required!by!RESPA.”!!Id. at!1221.!!Sirote!contended!that!

he!had!never!entered!into!a!loan!agreement!with!the!bank!and!that!his!signature!had!

been!forged.!!Thus,!his!request!related!to!loan!origination,!not!servicing.!!In!the!

instant!case,!it!cannot!be!disputed!that!the!request!for!payment!history!related!to!

loan!servicing.!!

17 These!include:!!(1)!failure!to!accept!payments;!(2)!failure!to!properly!credit!

payments!to!principal,!interest,!escrow!and!other!charges;!(3)!failure!to!credit!

payments!as!of!the!date!of!receipt;!(4)!failure!to!pay!taxes,!insurance!premiums!and!

other!charges!in!a!timely!manner!or!to!refund!escrow!account!balance;!(5)!imposing!

a!fee!without!a!reasonable!basis!(6)!failing!to!provide!an!accurate!payoff!balance;!

(7)!failing!to!provide!accurate!information!regarding!loss!mitigation!and!

foreclosure;!(8)!failing!to!transfer!information!from!one!loan!servicer!to!another!in!a!

timely!and!accurate!manner;!(9)!improper!foreclosure!notice;!(10)!wrongfully!

initiating!foreclosure!proceedings.

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 23 of 31
24

the!Wells!Fargo!provide!them!with!specific!information,!including!full!payoff!

information,!a!monthly!amortization!schedule,!a!breakdown!of!all late!fees!and!other!

charges,!copies!of!Plaintiffs’!1098!forms!for!certain!tax!years,!and!a!payoff!

statement.

Wells!Fargo!responded!with!a!letter!dated!May!20,!2014.!!Despite!the!

numerous!errors!set!out!by!Plaintiffs!in!the!QWR,!Wells!Fargo!acknowledged!only!

two!only!two!issues:!!(1)!“Applying!payments!in!accordance!with!the!Chapter!11!

Bankruptcy!plan!and!a!Payoff!quote”!and!(2)!“Escrow!disbursements!since!

September!01,!2010.”!!The!letter!provided!a!chart!showing!escrow!disbursements!

for!the!relevant!time!period.!!Despite!an!entire!paragraph!devoted!to the!bankruptcy!

payments!and!the!payoff,!the!letter!provided!no!real!enlightenment!in!that!regard:

We!have!received!notification!of!the!courtDapproved!modification!to!

your!loan!that!has!occurred!in!connection!with!your!Chapter!11!

bankruptcy!case.!!Please!be!advised!that!we!are!diligently!working!to!

make!updates!to!our!system!that!will!allow!us!to!bring!our!system!of!

record!in!line!with!the!terms!of!the!modification.!!Once!these!system!

updates!are!complete!we!will!be!able!to!honor!your!requests!for!the!

following,!Customer!Account!Activity!Statement!(CAAS);!payoff;!

updates!to!system!of!record!and!clarification!regarding!payment!

amount!the!reflect!the!terms!of!your!modified!loan.!!Please!be!assured!

that!the!delay!caused!by!these!system!updates!does!not!negatively!

impact!your!account!or!your!ability!to!continue!making!your!monthly!

payment!in!the!new!modified!amount.!!We!sincerely!appreciate!your!

continued!patience!while!we!work!through!these!system!

enhancements.!!In!the!interim,!if!you!have!any!additional!questions!

regarding!this!situation,!please!feel!free!to!contact!us.

(Ex.!F SAC,!Doc.!74D1.)

The!statute!requires!a!mortgage!servicer!to!respond!to!a!QWR18 within!30!

days!in!one!of!three!ways:!!(1)!“make!appropriate!corrections!in!the!account!of!the!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 18 Wells!Fargo!does!not!dispute!that!the!May!2nd letter!was!a!QWR.

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 24 of 31
25

borrower,!including!the!crediting!of!any!late!charges!or!penalties,!and!transmit!to!

the!borrower!a!written!notification!of!such!correction;”!(2)!“after!conducting!an!

investigation,!provide!the!borrower!with!a!written!explanation!or!clarification!that!

includes,!to!the!extent!applicable,!a!statement!of!the!reasons!for!which!the!servicer!

believes!the!account!of!the!borrower!is!correct!as!determined!by!the!servicer”!or!(3)

after!conducting!an!investigation,!provide!the!borrower with!a!written!explanation!

or!clarification!that!includes!information!requested!by!the!borrower!or!an!

explanation!of!why!the!information!requested!is!unavailable!or!cannot!be!obtained!

by!the!servicer.”!!12!U.S.C.!§!2605(e)(2).19

Wells!Fargo!argues!that!the!May!20th letter,!as!a!matter!of!law,!satisfied!its!

duty!to!respond!under!RESPA,!although!it!neglects!to!say!how!it!does!so!or!which!

category!of!response!it!falls!under.!!Clearly,!the!first!category!does!not!apply!because!

Wells!Fargo!made!no!corrections!to!Plaintiffs’!account.!!Nor!does!the!second!

category!apply!because!the!letter!does!not!address!many!of!the!numerous!errors!

pointed!out!in!the!QWR.!!That!leaves!only!the!third!category—information!

requested!by!the!borrower!or!an!explanation!of!why!that!information!is!unavailable.!!

The!letter,!in!the!Court’s!judgment,!falls!woefully!short!of!satisfying!those!

requirements!as!a!matter!of!law.!!First,!the!letter!addresses!only!two!errors!

identified!in!the!QWR,!while!completely!ignoring!the!other!eight.!!Second, with!

respect!to!the!bankruptcy!issue!the!letter!is!a!textbook!example!of!a!nonresponsive!

response.!!In!a!nutshell,!its!states!that!Wells!Fargo!is!working!on!problems!with!its!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 19 In!addition!to!the!substantive!information,!the!statute!also!requires!that!

any!response!provide!the!name!and!telephone!number!of!an!employee!who!can!

assist!the!borrower.##Id.

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 25 of 31
26

system!related!to!the!bankruptcy!modifications!and,!at that!at!some!unidentified

point!in!the!future,!Wells!Fargo!will!be!able!to!provide!information!about!the!

account.

20 This!claim!survives!the!motion!to!dismiss.!!

3.##The#August#27,#2014#&#October#9,#2014#Letters

The!SAC!also!alleges!RESPA!violations!based!on!QWR’s!dated!August!27,!

2014!and!October!9,!2014.!!Wells!Fargo!argues!that!claims!based!on!these!letters!are!

due!to!be!dismissed!“because!they!are!admittedly!duplications!of!their!May!2,!2014!

letter!to!Wells!Fargo,!to#which#Wells#Fargo#properly#responded.”!!(Defs.’!Br.!41,!Doc.!

84,!emphasis!added).!!In!support!of!this!argument,!Wells!Fargo!cites!two!cases,!

Hawkins:El#v.#First#American#Funding,#LLC, 891!F.!Supp.!2d!402!(E.D.N.Y.!2012)!and!

Bates#v.#JP#Morgan#Chase#Bank,#N.A.#768!F.3d!1126!(11th Cir.!2014),!both!of!which!

held!that!a!plaintiff!could!not!recover!under!RESPA!for!duplicative!QWR’s!where!the!

loan!servicer!had!adequately addressed!the!issues!raised!in!the!initial!QWR.!!That!is!

not!the!case!here.!!Hence,!Wells!Fargo’s!argument!fails.

N.#Fair#Credit#Reporting#Act (Count#Thirteen)

Wells!Fargo!argues!that!Plaintiffs’!claim!under!the!Fair!Credit!Reporting!Act!

(FCRA),!15!U.S.C.!§§1681,!et#seq.,!is!insufficiently!pled!because!it!does!not!specify!the!

failure!in!Wells!Fargo’s!investigation!into!the!dispute!or!the!damages!that!resulted!

from!the!FCRA!violation.!!These!arguments!merit!little!response.!!The!facts!

supporting!the!inadequacy!of!the!investigation!are!selfDevident.!!Plaintiffs!have!

alleged!in!(painful)!detail!how!Wells!Fargo!failed!to!correct!problems!with!Plaintiffs’!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 20 Even!if!that!statement!might!be!considered!an!attempt!to!explain!why!the!

information!was!not!available,!a!factfinder!could!conclude!that!the!explanation—

following!six#years of!the!servicer’s!inability!to!handle!bankruptcy!modifications—

did!not!satisfy!RESPA’s!response!requirement.

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 26 of 31
27

account,!one!result!of!which!was!the!reporting!of!erroneous!credit!information.!!

Wells!Fargo’s!argument!that!damages!have!not!been!pled,!is!flatly!contradicted!by!

paragraph!155!of!the!SAC,!wherein!Plaintiffs!assert!a!number!of!damages!resulting!

from!the!FCRA!violation.!!This!cause!of!action!states!a!claim!upon!which!relief!may!

be!granted.

O.#Truth#in#Lending#Act Claims (Counts#Fourteen#&#Fifteen)

The Truth!in!Lending!Act!(TILA),!15!U.S.C.!§§!1601!et#seq.,!imposes!civil!

liability!on!“any!creditor who!fails!to!comply!with![TILA’s]!requirement[s].”!15!U.S.C.!

§!1640(a)!(emphasis!added).!!Wells!Fargo!and!Monument!contend!that!they!are!not!

creditors!within!the!meaning!of!the!statute!and,!therefore,!cannot!be!held!liable!

under!TILA.!!The!statute!provides!a!very!specific!definition!of!a!creditor:!!“The!term!

‘creditor’!refers!only!as!to!a!person!who!both!(1)!regularly!extends,!.!.!. consumer!

credit!which!is!payable!by!agreement!in!more!than!four!installments!or!for!which!

the!payment!of!a!finance!charge!is!or!may!be!required,!and!(2)!is!the!person!to!

whom!the!debt!arising!from!the!consumer!credit!transaction!is!initially!payable!on!

the!face!of!the!evidence!of!indebtedness.”!!15!U.S.C.!§!1602(g).!!Defendants!point!out!

that!neither!of!them!is!“the!person!to!whom!the!debt!.!.!.!is!initially!payable”!since!!

Monument!acquired!the!loan!by!assignment!and!Wells!Fargo!is!the!loan!servicer.!!

Plaintiffs!counter!these!Defendants!should!not!be!allowed!to!escape!liability.!!

Plaintiffs!rely!exclusively!on!a!bankruptcy!court!decision,!Peed#v.#Seterus,#Inc.#(In#re#

Peed),#Bankruptcy!No. 09D15486,!2014!WL!2987637!(Bankr.!S.D.!Ala.!July!1,!2014)!in!

which!the!bankruptcy!court!held!an!assignee!of!a!mortgage!could!be!held!liable!as!a!

“creditor”!for!TILA!violations!committed!by!its!mortgage!servicer.!!Invoking!

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 27 of 31
28

Congressional!intent!and!agency!principles,!the!court!determined!that!a!creditor!

could!be!held!liable!for!the!acts!its servicer,!but!it!did!not!explain!how!the!

assignee/mortgagee!in!that!case!qualified!as!a!creditor!under!TILA’s!definition.!!And!

nothing!in!Peed supports!the!proposition!that!a!loan!servicer!(such!as!Wells!Fargo)!

can!be!considered!a!creditor!under!TILA.

Recently,!in!James#v.#Nationstar#Mortg.,#LLC,!92!F.!Supp.!3d!1190,!2015!WL!

1038143!(S.D.!Ala.!March!9,!2015),!Judge!Steele!rejected!the!assignee/creditor!

liability!theory adopted!in!Peed#because!the!theory!ignores the!clear,!express!

language!of!the!statute.

[P]laintiffs!urge!the!Court!to!expand!§!1640(a)!civil!remedies!for!TILA!

violations!to!reach!all!creditors!and!assignees.!They!are!absolutely!

correct!that!TILA!is!a!consumer!protection!statute!to!be!construed!

liberally.!However,!the!liberal!construction!canon!is!not!a!judicial!

license!to!rewrite!a!statute!to!fit!what!a!court!thinks!Congress!should!

or!might!have!said,!but!did!not.!Federal!courts!are!not!at!liberty!to!

secondDguess!or!rewrite!federal!statutes!merely!because!they!disagree!

with!legislative!choices!or!think!they!can!capture!congressional!intent!

more!accurately!and!artfully!than!Congress!itself!did.!Here,!Congress!

has!seen!fit!to!define!“creditor”!in!a!narrow!manner that!excludes!

assignees;!has!generally!provided!for!civil!liability!under!§!1640(a)!

only!as!to!“creditors;”!and!has!provided!in!§!1641(e)!for!assignee!

liability!for!consumer!credit!transactions!secured!by!real!property!

only!where!violations!are!apparent!on!the!face!of!the!disclosure!

statement,!“[e]xcept!as!otherwise!specifically!provided.”!Such!specific,!

unambiguous!statutory!language!governs,!and!precludes!expansion!of!

TILA!liability!to!reach!FNMA!in!the!circumstances!presented!here.

James#v.#Nationstar#Mortgage,#LLC,!92!F.!Supp.!3d!at!___,!2015!WL!at!*5!(S.D.!Ala.!

2015)!(internal!citations!omitted).

This!Court!finds!the!reasoning!in!James persuasive.!!TILA!liability!cannot!be!

imposed!on!either!Wells!Fargo!nor!Monument!because!neither!qualifies!as!a!

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 28 of 31
29

“creditor”!within!the!meaning!of!the!statute.!!Plaintiffs’!TILA!claims!are,!therefore,!!

due!to!be!dismissed.!!

O.##Fair#Debt#Collection#Practices#Act (Count#Sixteen)

Wells!Fargo!and!Monument!argue!that!this!count!is!not!adequately!pleaded!

against!either!of!them.!!Count!Sixteen!asserts!a!claim!against!both!Monument!and!

Wells!Fargo!for!violations!of!the Fair!Debt!Collection!Practices!Act!(FDCPA),!15!

U.S.C.!§§!1692 et#seq.21!!Defendants!put!forth!two!bases!for!dismissal.!!The!first!is!

rather!vaguely!asserted.!!Defendants!point!out,!correctly,!that!the!FDCPA!generally!

does!not!apply!to!creditors!or!mortgage!servicers.!!But!they!gloss!over!one!

important!exception!to!that!general!rule.!“[C]onsumer's!creditors,!a!mortgage!

servicing!company,!or!an!assignee!of!a!debt!are!not!considered!‘debt!collectors,!as#

long#as#the#debt#was#not#in#default#at#the#time#it#was#assigned.’!”!Buckentin#v.#SunTrust#

Mortgage#Corp.,!928!F.!Supp.!2d!1273,!1294!(N.D.!Ala.!2013)!(emphasis!added)!

(quoting!Reese#v.#JPMorgan#Chase &#Co.,!686!F.Supp.2d!1291,!1307!(S.D.Fla.2009)).!!

In!this!case,!Plaintiffs!allege!that!the!debt!was!considered!to!be!in!default!at!the!time!

Wells!Fargo!became!the!loan!servicer.!!Consequently,!the!general!rule!excluding!

mortgage!servicers!would!not!apply!to!Wells!Fargo.!!There!is,!however,!no!reason!

Monument,!as!creditor, should!be!considered!a!debt!collector.22

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 21 The!FDCPA!defines!debt!collector!as!“any!person!who!uses!any!

instrumentality!of!interstate!commerce!or!the!mails!in!any!business!the!principal!

purpose!of!which!is!the!collection!of!any!debts,!or!who!regularly!collects!or!attempts!

to!collect,!directly!or!indirectly,!debts!owed!or!due!or!asserted!to!be!owed!or!due!

another.”!15!U.S.C.!§!1692a(6).!!

22 Plaintiffs!contend!that!Monument!and!Wells!Fargo!should!both!be!held!

liable!because!Monument!is!owned!by!Wells!Fargo.!!This!argument!is!meritless!for!

two!reasons.!!First,!the!Wells!Fargo!defendant!in!this!caseDDWells!Fargo!Home!

Mortgage,!Inc.—is!not!“Wells!Fargo!Bank,!N.A.”!the!alleged!sole!shareholder!in!

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 29 of 31
30

Defendants!also!argue!that!claims!against!both!should!be!dismissed!because!

the!SAC!does!not!allege!any!debt!collection!attempts!made!by!Monument!and!the!

specific!allegations!against!Wells!Fargo!are!insufficient.!!This!argument!is!valid!as!to!

Monument!but!not!as!to!Wells!Fargo.!!The!SAC!asserts!that!Wells!Fargo!made!

telephone!calls!to!Plaintiffs who!were!represented!by!counsel!in!violation!of!15!

U.S.C.!§!1692c(2)!the!FDCPA!and!sent!monthly!account!statements!and!a!payoff!

statement!in!violation!of!15!U.S.C.!§!1692(e)(2)(A).!!(SAC!¶¶!188D89.)!!In!sum,!the!

claim!asserted!against!Monument!in!Count!Sixteen!due!to!be!dismissed;!the!claim!

against!Wells!Fargo!is!not.

IV.##Conclusion

For!the!reasons!discussed!above,!the!motion!to!dismiss!the!Second!Amended!

Complaint!filed!by!Defendants!Wells!Fargo!Home!Mortgage,!Inc.!and!Monument!

Street!Funding!II,!LLC!is!hereby!granted,!in!part,!and!denied,!in!part,!as!follows:

• All!fictitious!parties!are!dismissed.

• Plaintiff!George!Shedd’s!claims!for!breach!of!contract!and!violations!of!

RESPA,!TILA,!and!FDCPA!are!dismissed for!lack!of!standing.

• Plaintiffs’!claim!for!breach!of!contract!against!Wells!Fargo!is!dismissed.

• Plaintiffs’!claims!for!breach!of!the!duty!of!good!faith!and!fair!dealing (Count!

Two),!breach!of!fiduciary!duty (Count!Three),!fraud (Count!Five),!promissory!

fraud (Count!Six),!fraudulent!suppression!or!concealment (Count!Seven),!

unconscionability (Count!Eight),!unjust!enrichment (Count!Nine),!accounting

(Count!Ten),!and!violation!of!TILA!(Counts!Fourteen!&!Fifteen)!are!

dismissed in!their!entirety.

• Plaintiffs’!claim!against!Defendant!Monument!for!violation!of!the!FDCPA!is!

dismissed.

• Plaintiff!Pamela!Shedd’s!claims!for!breach!of!contract against!Monument

(Count!One),!wantonness (Count!Four) and!violations!of!RESPA (Counts!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Monument!Street!Funding!II,!LLC.!!!Second,!even!if!the!two!were!one!and!the!same,!

Plaintiffs’!argument!completely!ignores!“[a]!basic!tenet!of!corporate!law”—“the!

corporation!and!its!shareholders!are!distinct!entities.”!!Dole#Food#Co.#v.#Patrickson,!

538!U.S.!468,!474!(2003).

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 30 of 31
31

Eleven!&!Twelve),!FCRA (Count!Thirteen),!and!FDCPA!against!Wells!Fargo!

(Count!Sixteen)!survive.

• Plaintiff!George!Shedd’s!claims!for!wantonness!(Count!Four)!and!violation!of!

the!FCRA! (Count!Thirteen)!survive.

DONE# and!ORDERED this!the!26th day!of!October,!2015.

s/Charles#R#Butler,#Jr.

Senior#United#States#District#Judge

Case 1:14-cv-00275-WS-M Document 105 Filed 10/26/15 Page 31 of 31