Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Evans v. Beneficial Financial I, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Maryland

February 9, 2015

RONDA LYNNETTE SHORT EVANS
v.
BENEFICIAL FINANCIAL I, INC., et al.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, District Judge.

Presently pending and ready for resolution in this consumer lending case are a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Beneficial Financial I, Inc. ("Beneficial" or "Defendant") (ECF No. 20), and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint filed by pro se Plaintiff Ronda Lynette Short Evans ("Plaintiff" or "Ms. Evans") (ECF No. 28). The issues have been fully briefed, and the court now rules, no hearing being deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the following reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss will be granted, and Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint will be denied.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

On December 27, 2005, Plaintiff obtained a home mortgage refinance loan from Beneficial Mortgage Company of Maryland[1] in the amount of $393, 997.28, secured by a Deed of Trust against property located at 503 Cretia Place, Upper Marlboro, Maryland ("the Property").[2] ( See ECF No. 2-1 & ECF No. 20-2). The loan was used to satisfy a preexisting mortgage loan on the Property; a Certificate of Satisfaction for the preexisting loan was recorded on February 16, 2006. ( See ECF No. 20-3). Plaintiff defaulted on the loan and on December 16, 2013, Beneficial initiated a foreclosure action against Plaintiff in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County.[3] ( See ECF No. 20-5).

On December 20, 2013, Beneficial sold Plaintiff's loan to LSF8 Master Participation Trust. A "Notice of Sale of Ownership of Mortgage Loan, " dated January 9, 2014, was sent to Plaintiff, informing her that the loan was sold to LSF8 Master Participation Trust and that Caliber Home Loans, Inc. ("Caliber") became the new loan servicer. (ECF No. 2-2). On January 16, 2014, Beneficial mailed Plaintiff its own notice, informing her to send to Caliber all payments due on or after February 1, 2014. (ECF No. 2-5). On February 12, 2014, Caliber sent a letter to Plaintiff titled, "Important Information Regarding the Servicing of Your Mortgage Loan." (ECF No. 2-6, at 1). The letter confirmed that the servicing of Plaintiff's mortgage loan was transferred from Beneficial to Caliber, and as of February 1, 2014, Plaintiff should begin sending mortgage loan payments to Caliber. ( Id. at 1-2). On February 18, 2014, Caliber sent a letter to Plaintiff informing her that as of February 13, 2014, she had an outstanding debt of $555, 013.76 on her mortgage. (ECF No. 2-7).

B. Procedural History

On May 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the District Court of Maryland for Prince George's County, naming as Defendants Fisher Law Group, PLLC ("Fisher"), Caliber Home Loans, Inc. ("Caliber"), and Beneficial. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff asserted breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation claims against Beneficial. (ECF No. 2, at 13-15). Plaintiff further alleged that Caliber and Fisher each violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 et seq. (ECF No. 2, at 15-17). On June 20, 2014, the three defendants jointly filed a notice of removal, citing diversity jurisdiction as the jurisdictional basis.[4] (ECF No. 1).

Defendants Caliber and Fisher each answered the complaint.[5] (ECF Nos. 12 & 15). Beneficial moved to dismiss the complaint on July 25, 2014. (ECF No. 20). Plaintiff was provided with a Roseboro notice (ECF No. 21), which advised her of the pendency of the motion to dismiss and her entitlement to respond within seventeen (17) days from the date of the letter. Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir.1975) (holding pro se plaintiffs should be advised of their right to file responsive material to a motion for summary judgment). Plaintiff opposed the motion (ECF No. 24), and Beneficial replied (ECF No. 25).

On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff moved for leave to amend her complaint. (ECF No. 28) Beneficial opposed the motion for leave to amend, (ECF No. 29), and Plaintiff replied (ECF No. 30).

II. Analysis

A. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

1. Statute of Limitations

Beneficial argues that Plaintiff's breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation claims are barred by Maryland's three-year statute of limitations for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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