Opinion ID: 2353188
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether plaintiff's claims are covered by the Curry class action

Text: The plaintiff's Superior Court complaint alleged that defendant violated certain Rhode Island statutory notice requirements and breached an implied contract when it foreclosed on the property. Further, she claimed that the actions of defendant constituted deceptive trade practices. [12] Paragraph 3 of the District Court's final order defines the certified class as: All persons, other than Excluded Persons, whose loans were serviced by Fairbanks during the period from January 1, 1999 to December 10, 2003, inclusive, and: (a) whose loans were (i) in Default or treated as being in Default by Fairbanks and (A) who incurred or were assessed late fees and/or Default-Related fees including without limitation, fees denominated by Fairbanks as `corporate advances,' or (B) who were affected by Default-Related conduct; and/or (ii) ones in which the Member incurred or was assessed prepayment penalties in Massachusetts, Alabama or West Virginia or in violation of law or contract; or (b) who otherwise were affected, or whose loans were otherwise affected, by one of the Covered Practices. Further, the settlement agreement defines Default-Related as: [A]ny and all acts, omissions, practices, conduct or behavior by Fairbanks or one of the Fairbanks-Related Parties that was taken at any time with respect to a Serviced Loan that is or ever was in Default or treated by Fairbanks as being in Default, and, subject to the foregoing, shall include, but not be limited to, those Servicing practices that are the subject of the Consolidated Class Action Complaint, and all related transactions or occurrences or series of transactions or occurrences. In view of these precisely worded definitions, it is our opinion that plaintiff's claims fall squarely within the class as defined and certified by the USDC. The plaintiff most certainly is a person whose loan was serviced by Fairbanks during the period from January 1, 1999, to December 10, 2003, and who either was in default, or was treated by Fairbanks as being in default, and was affected by the Default-Related conduct of Fairbanks as that term was defined by the District Court. The plaintiff argues, however, that she was not a member of the class because (1) she was technically not a borrower on the loan; (2) she was not listed on the class member list ordered by the District Court; [13] and (3) the release contained in the settlement agreement did not apply to individual property claims such as her Superior Court action, but rather, applied only to other class actions that either were pending at the time of the settlement, or were attempted to be brought in the future. These arguments warrant little discussion. First, the loan documents, signed by Kathy and Andre at the time of execution, list both parties together as borrower, and thus the documents themselves undercut plaintiff's initial contention. Second, the issue of whether plaintiff falls within the class in Curry is governed solely by the definition of the class as certified in the final order. [14] That portion of the settlement agreement calling for the creation of a class member list deals solely with the issue of notice and clearly is not intended to be a definitive or all-inclusive list of possible class members. Thus, in our view, plaintiff's exclusion from the class member list has no bearing on the question of whether her claims fall under the class action umbrella. Finally, any fair reading of the language of the settlement agreement reveals that the settlement indisputably was intended to encompass individual claims as well as any pending or potential class actions. The section of the settlement agreement entitled RELEASES says: This Release shall specifically apply to bar any dispute about    the matters that are within the scope of this Release, whether, whenever and however such dispute or issue may arise or be raised.  [15] (Emphasis added.) In the face of this language, it cannot seriously be contended that individual claims were beyond the scope of the settlement in the class action suit.