Opinion ID: 2197720
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Violation of the D.C. Consumer Protection Act

Text: Appellants also contend that GE Capital, Wells Fargo, and the foreclosure trustees violated the D.C. Consumer Protection Act, [4] § 28-301, D.C.Code, et seq.  by: the premature institution of foreclosure proceedings[;] the improper statutory cure amount[;] and the refusal to correct the statutory cure amount and... postpone on reasonable terms the foreclosure sale[.] The trial court dismissed appellants' Consumer Protection Act claim against all appellees [5] on the grounds that appellants failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. In their complaint, appellants alleged a violation of D.C.Code § 28-3801, et seq.  The trial court agreed with the foreclosure trustees that the mortgage at issue was outside the scope of the statutory sections cited because it was for the sale of real estate worth over $25,000. Appellants now argue that the Superior Court misapprehended their complaint and they assert that their case falls under a section of the Consumer Protection Procedures Act, [6] D.C.Code § 28-3901 (2001), that they did not cite in their complaint. While appellees argue here that the trial court correctly dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted, [7] they also argue that appellants' Consumer Protection Act claim is barred by the statute of limitations. We agree with the latter contention. D.C.Code § 12-301(8) (2001) provides that a three-year statute of limitations applies when no other period of limitation is specified for an action. No statute of limitations is specified for actions brought under the D.C. Consumer Protection Act, D.C.Code §§ 28-3801-3819, and so the residual three-year statute of limitations applies. Furthermore, this court has held that the three-year residual statute of limitations applies to claims brought under the Consumer Protections Procedure Act. District Cablevision Ltd. P'ship v. Bassin, 828 A.2d 714, 729 (D.C.2003). See also D.C.Code § 28-3905(a) (2001) (explaining that for actions brought pursuant to the Consumer Protections Procedure Act, the statute of limitations prescribed by D.C.Code § 12-301 is tolled by the filing of a complaint with the District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs). A plaintiff must bring an action based on the Consumer Protection Procedures Act within three years from the time the right to maintain the action accrues[.] D.C.Code § 12-301. Appellants have argued, as indicated in our own discussion of count 2 above, that their causes of action against Wells Fargo and the foreclosure trustees did not accrue at the time the notice of foreclosure was issued because they had not yet suffered injuries or damages. As we observed above in rejecting that argument, [w]here the fact of an injury can be readily determined, a claim accrues for purposes of the statute of limitations at the time the injury actually occurs. Colbert v. Georgetown Univ., 641 A.2d 469, 472 (D.C.1994) (en banc). See also News World Commc'ns, Inc. v. Thompsen, 878 A.2d 1218, 1222 (D.C.2005) (explaining that a cause of action accrues when its elements are present, so that the plaintiff could maintain a successful suit.). Thus, we held that the breach of good faith and fair dealing claim, as set forth in count 2, was also barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The factual allegations that are the basis of that claim  premature institution of foreclosure, listing the incorrect statutory cure amount, refusing to correct the cure amount, and refusing to postpone the foreclosure sale  also underlie the claimed violation of the Consumer Protection Act. As such, appellants' Consumer Protection Act claim could have been brought at the time the notice of foreclosure was issued. According to the complaint, the trustees instituted foreclosure proceedings on May 22, 2002 and thus appellants were required to file suit by May 23, 2005. [8] The complaint, however, was not filed until June 6, 2005, and thus their Consumer Protection Act claim is barred by the three-year statute of limitations. Therefore, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the D.C. Consumer Protection Act count.