United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division
GREGORY J. WALSH, et al, Plaintiffs,
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, et al., Defendants.
J. HAZEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Gregory Walsh and Christina Walsh (collectively,
"Plaintiffs") brought an action against Bank of New
York Mellon, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
("SPS"), MERSCORP, Inc. ("MESCORP"), and
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. ("Chase") (collectively,
"Defendants") alleging violations of the Truth in
Lending Act ("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et
seq. and various state common law claims related to a
transaction for residential property now in foreclosure. On
January 19, 2017, the Court, having previously provided
Plaintiffs with an opportunity to amend their initial
complaint, dismissed Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.
ECF No. 43. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiffs'
Motion for Reconsideration of that Order as to claims against
defendants Bank of New York Mellon and SPS. ECF No. 44. No
hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md.
2016). For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration is denied.
detailed factual and procedural background of this litigation
is provided in the Court's January 19, 2017 Memorandum
Opinion, ECF No. 42, and only facts relevant to Plaintiffs*
Motion for Reconsideration are discussed herein. Plaintiffs
purchased the subject property on November 12, 2004 and
shortly thereafter conveyed the property in "fee simply
absolute'' to a family-owned trust. Plaintiffs
brought suit on April 1, 2015, ECF No. 1, contesting, among
other things, the validity of an Assignment of Deed of Trust,
which had been transferred through a series of transactions
from the original lender to Bank of New York Mellon.
Plaintiffs raised allegations of fraud, disputing the
authenticity of the signatures on the Assignment, and argued
that Bank of New York Mellon, as the holder of the Deed of
Trust and underlying security interest, and SPS, as the loan
servicer, failed to make certain disclosures to Plaintiffs.
See generally, ECF No. 42 at
dismissing Plaintiffs' claims, the Court found that
Plaintiffs' TILA claims were time barred and SPS was not
subject to assignee liability under the TILA. In addition,
the Court found that Plaintiffs were not the owners of the
property in question and therefore did not have standing to
challenge the Assignment. ECF No. 42 at 6-7. The Court also
dismissed Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty claims
related to the origination of the loans as time barred and
held that Plaintiffs' claims under the Uniform Commercial
Code lacked merit because Plaintiffs had not contested the
validity or accuracy of the underlying security interest.
Id. at 7-9, 12. Finally, the Court found that
Plaintiffs' fraud and intentional infliction of emotional
distress claims failed because Plaintiffs failed to allege
any facts as to how they relied upon any purported
misrepresentations by Defendants or were damaged as a result.
Id. at 9-10.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) authorizes a district court to
grant relief from a final judgment for five enumerated
reasons or for "any other reason that justifies
relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1)-(6). Before a court
considers these reasons, however, a party seeking relief must
first demonstrate that: 1) the motion is timely; 2) there is
a meritorious defense to the action; and 3) the opposing
party would not suffer unfair prejudice by having the
judgment set aside. See National Credit Union Admin. Bd.
v. Gray, 1 F.3d 262, 264 (4th Cir. 1993) (citing
Park Corp. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 812 F.2d 894, 896
(4th Cir. 1987)). Because Plaintiffs cannot satisfy this
threshold test, their Motion will be denied.
do not have a meritorious defense to the Court's Order.
In attempting to re-litigate the merits of the case,
Plaintiffs fail to address the underlying faults within their
amended complaint. Plaintiffs only contest the Court's
finding that they did not have standing to challenge the
Assignment. ECF No. 44 ¶¶ 12, 19, 20 (arguing that
Plaintiffs had standing because Plaintiffs remained liable
for the mortgage debt associated with the lenders'
security interest even though Plaintiffs had conveyed the
property to the family trust). Even if Plaintiffs are correct
and have standing to challenge the Assignment, the
Court's Order raised a number of other reasons,
irrespective of standing, as to why Plaintiffs' claims
fail. Plaintiffs' motion simply ignores them.
granting Plaintiffs' motion would unfairly prejudice
Defendants. Plaintiffs did not respond to Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss, ECF Nos. 35, 36. Doing so would have afforded
Defendants an opportunity to reply to the arguments now set
forth in Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration. Also,
Plaintiffs did not appeal the Court's ruling, despite the
fact that the time to do so has passed. Thus, Defendants are
entitled to the finality that comes with the end of a legal
Rule 60(b) motions are only granted "where extraordinary
circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to
prevent or correct an erroneous judgment." United
States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir, 984 F.2d 1047,
1049 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Wadley v. Equifax Info
Servs., LLC, 296 Fed.Appx. 366, 369 (4th Cir. 2008).
Plaintiffs do not present any extraordinary circumstances
justifying relief under Rule 60(b). And even if the Court
were to conclude that Plaintiffs have passed the threshold
test warranting consideration of the Rule 60(b) bases for
relief, no such relief is warranted. For example, Plaintiffs
argue that the Court's Order should be set aside because
the mortgage underlying Defendants' security interest has
been paid in full and discharged. ECF No. 44 ¶ 31
(citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5)). As proof, Plaintiffs attach a
document entitled 'Notice of Default in Dishonor Consent
to Judgment, ' which appears to be a self-serving
documented drafted by Plaintiffs attempting to assert that
Defendants, having not responded to the document, stipulate
to Plaintiffs' assertion that "since 1933, when
Franklin D. Roosevelt took all of the gold and silver out of
circulation,  we have no currency of value or substance
with which to pay a debt... and  the Bank loaned me nothing
in this transaction." ECF No. 44-1. The frivolousness of
this argument captures the overall merits of Plaintiffs'
motion, and the Court will not grant relief from its prior
foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion for
Reconsideration, ECF No. 44, shall be ...