Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bolden v. Franklin Bank, SSB

United States District Court, Fourth Circuit

October 4, 2013

SYLVIA E. BOLDEN, Plaintiff,
v.
FRANKLIN BANK, SSB, et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM

ELLEN LIPTON HOLLANDER, District Judge.

Plaintiff Sylvia Bolden, who is self-represented, filed a complaint against Franklin Bank, SSB ("Franklin"); GMAC Mortgage, LLC ("GMAC"); Residential Funding Corp. ("Residential Funding"); Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. ("MERS"); Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo"); and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A ("J.P. Morgan Chase"), seeking to quiet title to real property at 9393 Steeple Court in Laurel, Maryland. See ECF 1.

On January 18, 2006, Bolden signed a promissory note and entered into a mortgage for the Property with Franklin, the original lender. ECF 1 ¶ 14. Franklin indorsed the note to Residential Funding, and Residential Funding subsequently indorsed it to J.P. Morgan Chase. See Note, ECF 4-2 at 27. On August 12, 2012, in default on the loan and facing foreclosure, Bolden filed this action, alleging that her loan was "securitized, " that her debt has been discharged, and that the defendants have no "standing" to enforce the note. Id. ¶¶ 27, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 43, 45-48.

The defendants moved to dismiss. See ECF 4, ECF 8. On January 8, 2013, Judge Blake dismissed Bolden's claims against GMAC, Residential, MERS, and Wells Fargo, ruling that Bolden did not discharge her debt and thus had no basis to ask for a declaration that she has unencumbered title to the Property. See ECF 14-15. Thereafter, on January 28, 2013, Judge Blake dismissed Bolden's claim against Franklin on the same grounds. However, due to a conflict of interest, Judge Blake did not rule on the motion of J.P. Morgan Chase. The case was subsequently reassigned to me. ECF 16.

I have reviewed Bolden's complaint (ECF 1), J.P. Morgan Chase's Motion to Dismiss (ECF 4), Bolden's Opposition (ECF 10), as well as J.P. Morgan Chase's Reply (ECF 12). For the reasons stated in Judge Blake's Memorandum (ECF 14), and for the reasons stated by Judge Nickerson and Chief Judge Chasanow in addressing similar claims, see Blum v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, 2012 WL 2137962 (D. Md. June 12, 2012); Suss v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, 2010 WL 2733097, at *6 (D. Md. July 9, 2010); Flores v. Deutsche Bank, 2010 WL 2719849, at *5 (D. Md. July 7, 2010); Suss v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, 2009 WL 2923122, at *4 (D. Md. Sept. 10, 2009), I will grant J.P. Morgan Chase's Motion to Dismiss (ECF 4), as reflected in the accompanying Order.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.