United States District Court, D. Maryland
AMINATA M. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
21ST MORTGAGE CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
XINIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants
21st Mortgage Corporation and Ocwen Loan Servicing
(“Ocwen”) (ECF Nos. 33 and 34). The relevant
issues have been fully briefed and the court now rules
pursuant to Local Rule 105.6 because no hearing is necessary.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court will GRANT
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
Aminata M. Williams (“Plaintiff”) resides at
13107 Ogles Hope Drive, Bowie, Maryland 20720 (the
“Property”). This matter arises out of
foreclosure proceedings on the Property, initiated by
Defendant Ocwen as attorney-in-fact for Defendant 21st
Mortgage Corporation. See Amended Complaint, ECF No.
25 at 17; Defendant Ocwen's Reply, ECF No. 44 at 3.
Defendant Residential Funding Company, LLC
(“Residential Funding”) was a prior holder of the
note and deed of trust at issue, ECF No. 25 at 7; ECF No.
33-8 at 13, and Defendant U.S. Bank, N.A. (“U.S.
Bank”) acted as Residential Funding's trustee. ECF
No. 25 at 11; see ECF No. 33-8 at 14. At the heart
of Plaintiff's claim is her purported rescission of her
mortgage loan in 2008.
September 25, 2006, Plaintiff refinanced her mortgage,
executing a promissory note (the “Note”) in the
original principal amount of $732, 000.00, payable to the
Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc., ECF No. 33-6 at 1, and
secured by a properly recorded deed of trust (the “Deed
of Trust”). ECF No. 33-8; ECF No. 25 at 4. Plaintiff
defaulted on the note in July 2007, after making nine monthly
payments. ECF No. 25 at 6.
alleges that she never received any closing documentation
from the title company, APlus Title Agency, Inc.
(“APlus”). ECF No. 25 at 5. Further, Plaintiff
alleges that the settlement documentation she received in
response to her 2008 Qualified Written Requests to APlus and
Homecomings Financial, the mortgage servicer, were
inadequate. ECF No. 25 at 6.
September 19, 2008, Plaintiff then sought to rescind her
loan. Specifically, Plaintiff sent a letter to Homecomings
Financial asserting rescission because the failure to provide
proper disclosure and documents amounted to a Truth in
Lending Act violation. Notice of Rescission, ECF No. 33-2;
ECF No. 25 at 6. On November 25, 2008, Homecomings Financial
replied to Williams, stating that they “reviewed [the]
file and [found] no basis to conclude that there were any
material disclosure errors that would give rise to an
extended right or rescission.” ECF No. 25 at 6-7.
four years after this purported notice of rescission,
Defendant Residential Funding held the Note and Deed of Trust
from September 11, 2012 to June 17, 2013, ECF No. 25 at 9,
and Defendant U.S. Bank was a Trustee to Residential Funding
during that same time period. ECF No. 25 at 11; see
ECF No. 33-8 at 14. The Note and Deed of Trust was then
transferred to Defendant 21st Mortgage Corporation. ECF No.
25 at 9. Plaintiff maintains that the rescission was valid,
ECF No. 25 at 15, so consequently Defendant 21st Mortgage
Corporation is the holder of an invalid Note and Deed of
Trust and lacked standing to initiate the foreclosure in
August 27, 2009, Homecomings Financial, the financial
institution which secured the mortgage at the time, filed an
action to foreclose on the Property in the Circuit Court for
Prince George's County Maryland in Burson, et al. v.
Williams, CAE 09-25087. This action was dismissed
without prejudice by the Substitute Trustees on January 13,
April 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy
petition in the District of Maryland, In re
Williams, Ch. 7 Case No. 10-19317 (“2010
Bankruptcy Proceeding”), one of Plaintiff's seven
bankruptcy petitions to date. Plaintiff received a Chapter 7
discharge on August 10, 2010 and the case was dismissed on
February 3, 2012. As a result of this bankruptcy
adjudication, Plaintiff received a discharge of the Note
obligation. See 2010 Bankruptcy Proceeding,
Discharge Order, ECF No. 26; Schedule F, ECF No. 1-1 (listing
mortgage debt on 1307 Ogles Hope Drive in the amount of $904,
November 7, 2013, 21st Mortgage Corporation, through
Substitute Trustees, initiated another foreclosure action in
the Circuit Court for Prince George's County Maryland,
CAEF13-33472 (the “State Foreclosure Action”).
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay and or Dismiss in the State
Foreclosure Action pursuant to Md. Rule 14-211, seeking to
stay the sale of the property and dismiss the foreclosure
action. In Plaintiff's motion, she argued:
[Plaintiff Williams] rescinded the loan. As is clear from 15
USC § 1635(b), [Williams] upon exercise of the right of
rescission, “is not liable for any finance or other
charge, and any security interest given by the obligor,
including any such interest arising by operation of law,
becomes void upon such a rescission.”
[Williams] asserts that the Noet [sic] and Deed of Trust are
void and cannot be a basis for the order to docket. Plaintiff
asserts that 21st Mortgage holds no interest in
and to the underlying loan and that any interest it may have
was void in 2008 and the case should be dismissed . . . .
Despite the fact that the loan is void, 21st Mortgage does
not have standing to challenge this motion or legal standing
to enforce the void Promissory Note under Maryland law.
Foreclosure Action, ECF No. 18 at 7.
5, 2016, the Circuit Court for Prince George's County
denied Plaintiff's motion in an order authorizing the
Substitute Trustees to proceed with selling the Property. The
Court specifically held that:
Upon review of the filings and opposition hereto, it is
apparent to this Court that [Williams'] motion does not
state a valid defense or present meritorious argument.
[Williams] points the Court to 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a) in
support of her claim that she rescinded her residential
mortgage transaction in 2008, however 15 U.S.C. §
1635(e)(1)-(2) exempts mortgage and refinance transactions
from section 1635 of the U.S. Code and 12 C.F.R. §
226.23 is inapplicable in this case. Additionally,
[Williams'] request [for a hearing] is not timely filed .
ORDERED that [Williams'] emergency motion is DENIED
without a hearing pursuant to MD Rule ...