United States District Court, D. Maryland
April 17, 2014
TAO ENIOLA, ET AL
PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC
J. FREDERICK MOTZ, District Judge.
Tao and Vanilda Eniola have brought this action against PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. They initially respresented themselves but upon their motion counsel was appointed to represent them. They then filed a first amended complaint. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss that complaint. The motion will be granted.
Plaintiffs reside and own the premises located at 9404 Van Buren Street, Lanham, Maryland. They allege that they planned to lease or sell that residence and buy another smaller property. In that regard they were the successful bidder at an auction conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for a house located at 10125 Prince Place, Upper Marlboro, Maryland. Plaintiffs allege that they paid a deposit of $500 for that house and planned to purchase that house at a settlement to be conducted on August 29, 2013. They bid $42, 000 for the property, but the fair market value of the property as assessed by others was $39, 000.
Initially, defendant seems to have indicated that it would finance the purchase of the new house. However, the documentation relied upon by plaintiffs does not establish that defendant ever promised to finance the purchase. An email sent to plaintiff by defendant's loan officer on August 10, 2013 stated that "I have everything I requested at this point." Implicit in that statement was the fact that at a later point defendant may request something else.
Plaintiffs presented to defendant a check in the amount of $2, 500 made out to them by their niece who allegedly was going to move into the Van Buren Street property. Plaintiffs do not deny that defendant requested them to deposit the check, and that they declined to do so. According to defendant, this declination to deposit the check gave rise to an implication that plaintiffs planned to continue to reside at the Van Buren Street address and that they had purchased the Prince Place property as an investment. If that were true, plaintiffs would have been required to pay a higher interest rate for financing the purchase of the Prince Place property.
Under these circumstances defendant made no deceitful representations to plaintiffs or violated any tort duty defendant owed to plaintiffs. Defendant was well within its rights in requesting that the $2, 500 check be deposited and, when plaintiffs declined to do so, defendant acted reasonably in declining to finance the purchase of the Prince Place property. Therefore, defendant's motion to dismiss is meritorious and will be granted.