Opinion ID: 2774349
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 2d at 79; Chamberlain, supra, 931 A.2d at 1023.

Text: B. Whether the Wrongful Foreclosure Claim was Erroneously Dismissed Appellant also contends that the trial court improperly dismissed his wrongful foreclosure claim. According to appellant, Wells Fargo issued a 22 defective notice of foreclosure by listing an inaccurate balance owed — $768,776.20 — and should have deducted the unused funds held in an escrow account for renovation purposes and a ten percent contingency from the balance owed, totaling $220,874.12, which would have reduced it to $547,902.08. This defective notice, appellant contends, rendered the foreclosure wrongful. We disagree, and hold that appellant failed to plead sufficient factual content showing that the balance owed was inaccurate or that he had suffered any harm from the alleged inaccuracy. ―[A]n action for wrongful or improper foreclosure may lie where the property owner sustains damages by reason of a foreclosure executed in a manner contrary to law.‖ Johnson v. Fairfax Vill. Condo. IV Unit Owners Ass’n, 641 A.2d 495, 505 (D.C. 1994) (citation omitted). Under D.C. Code § 42-815 (c)(1)(A) (2011 Supp.), a foreclosure sale ―shall not take place unless the holder of the note secured by the deed of trust, mortgage, or security instrument, or its agent, gives written notice of the intention to foreclose . . . to the person who holds the title of record.‖ A notice of foreclosure must include certain ―loan information,‖ including: ―(i) The amount of the principal balance and outstanding interest owed; (ii) All past due payments; (iii) Penalties; and (iv) The amount required to cure the 23 default and reinstate the loan, including all past due payments, penalties, and fees[.]‖ D.C. Code § 42-815.02 (a)(11)(B) (2011 Supp.) (emphasis added). Generally, the statutory terms governing notice ―must be strictly complied with, in order to satisfy the due process requirements of notice and opportunity to be heard.‖ 15 However, certain defects in notice that are not material are insufficient to invalidate a foreclosure. See Rose v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 73 A.3d 1047, 1051 (D.C. 2013) (listing the address as ―c/o‖ an agent was insufficient to invalidate the notice of foreclosure). To determine whether a defect in notice is material enough to invalidate the foreclosure sale, or ―merely technical or de minimis,‖ we assess whether the deficiency ―affects the accuracy of the notice or creates a substantial risk of misleading the record owner about any of the information contained therein.‖ Rose, supra, 73 A.3d at 1051 (internal quotation marks omitted). If Wells Fargo failed to state an accurate principal balance amount in the notice of foreclosure, our inquiry would be whether this inaccuracy 15 Indep. Fed. Sav. Bank v. Huntley, 573 A.2d 787, 787–88 (D.C. 1990) (citations omitted) (concluding that foreclosure was invalid for failure to comply with a provision requiring thirty-day notice, despite actual receipt of notice); see also Bank-Fund Staff Fed. Credit Union v. Cuellar, 639 A.2d 561, 569–70 (D.C. 1994) (invalidating foreclosure due to failure to include the cure amount in the notice of foreclosure). 24 is sufficient to render the notice defective and thus invalidate the foreclosure sale of the Property. In Cuellar, we held that a notice of foreclosure must include an accurate cure amount, despite recognizing that appellants were aware of the accurate cure amount through a prior notice of foreclosure preceding the defective notice. See Cuellar, supra note 15, at 563–64, 569–70. Failing to state an accurate balance owed is similar to a defect in the cure amount because the purpose of each is to provide the homeowner with ―vital information on a timely basis‖ during the notice period to ―avoid[] potential disputes at a later time,‖ and to ―facilitate[] possible resolution of disputes about the [balance owed].‖ Id. (citation omitted). Moreover, although the requirement is a technical rule strictly construing the foreclosure notice provisions, it ―places on the party best able to produce the information the obligation to make certain it is included [accurately], thereby lessening the possibility of errors.‖ Id.; see also Diaby v. Bierman, 795 F. Supp. 2d 108, 114 (D.D.C. 2011) (deciding that ―an accurate cure amount is part of the notice requirement under District of Columbia law, and failure to provide an accurate cure amount may give rise to an action for wrongful foreclosure‖). 25 In this case, however, appellant has not pled sufficient facts to show that the balance owed in the notice was inaccurate. Based on the facts alleged, appellant claimed that Wells Fargo ―foreclosed upon [the] Property for the incorrect amount of $768,776.20,‖ rather than $547,902.08. However, at no point in the complaint does appellant cite to any provision of the 203(k) loan agreement or any other governing document between the parties to suggest that Wells Fargo was required to deduct the unused funds in the escrow account when giving notice of the balance owed. Cf. Robinson v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 932 F. Supp. 2d 95, 105 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding insufficient factual support for the allegation that the cure amount in the notice of foreclosure was inaccurate because the plaintiff did not reference any uncredited payments or otherwise offer an explanation for the inaccuracy, other than in opposition to defendant‘s motion to dismiss). Although appellant included a ―Cost Breakdown Detail‖ document that appears to reflect the amount of funds disbursed from the escrow account and the amount remaining in that account plus the ten percent contingency fee, he did not tie these amounts back to a provision in the loan agreement in any meaningful way that shows or suggests the unused funds and contingency fee should be deducted from the balance owed. In any event, the debate is semantic at best. As we understand Wells Fargo‘s position, it concedes that appellant could have applied the funds remaining in escrow to satisfy the amount owed as set forth in the notice of foreclosure. 26 Accordingly, appellant‘s defective notice argument fails. See Logan, supra, 80 A.3d at 1024 (citation omitted) (determining that even if appellant had pled sufficient factual content to show that the notice of foreclosure was ―robo-signed,‖ because the defect was ―merely technical or de minimis,‖ it did not render the notice defective; ―[t]here [was] no indication that the notice failed to provide appellant with the information necessary to challenge the foreclosure‖). In both notice and harm, appellant‘s failure to provide a ―minimum amount of information prevents [him] from crossing the line from stating a claim that [is] possible to one that is facially plausible,‖ Robinson, supra, 932 F. Supp. 2d at 106 (citing Iqbal, supra, 556 U.S. at 678), and for these reasons, his wrongful foreclosure claim was properly dismissed.