United States District Court, D. Maryland, Southern Division
J. HAZEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Jerome Brown alleges that Defendant violated the Real Estate
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. § 2605,
et seq., and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq., as it
sought to foreclose on his home. ECF No. 1. Pending before
the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 3.
Although the Court granted Plaintiff two extensions of time
to file an opposition, ECF Nos. 7, 9, Plaintiff failed to
respond to Defendant's motion. No. hearing is necessary.
See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the following
reasons, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss will be granted.
Brown owns the real property located at 2926 Galeshead Drive,
Upper Marlboro, Maryland (the Property). ECF No. 1 ¶ 10.
On March 24, 2009, he executed a Deed of Trust securing an
Adjustable Rate Note to MetLife Home Loans, a Division of
MetLife Bank, N.A. Id. Pursuant to the Deed of Trust
and the Note (collectively “the Mortgage Loan”),
the lender agreed to provide Plaintiff with the principal sum
of five hundred and fifty-three thousand eight hundred and
seventy-six dollars ($553, 876.00) and he agreed to: (1) make
monthly payments to the lender or its assigns pursuant to the
terms of the Note and (2) provide the lender or its assigns a
first priority security interest on the Property. ECF No.
Mortgage Loan was assigned to JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
(Chase). ECF No. 1 ¶ 15. Defendant Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc (SPS) acts as the mortgage servicer on
Chase's behalf. Id. ¶ 12. SPS appointed
Substitute Trustees who on December 10, 2015 initiated a
foreclosure action against Plaintiff in the Circuit Court of
Prince George's County, Maryland because Plaintiff had
allegedly defaulted on the Mortgage Loan on June 1, 2010.
Id. ¶ 16.
January 4, 2018, Plaintiff submitted his first complete loan
modification application. Id. ¶ 18. On February
6, 2018, SPS denied Plaintiffs loan modification application
claiming that there were “no loss mitigation
options” for which he could be approved. Id.
¶ 19; ECF No. 1-2. The denial letter, which Plaintiff
attached to his Complaint, provided various non-retention
options including a short sale and a deed in lieu of
foreclosure. ECF No. 1-2 at 2. The letter explained that
Plaintiff was not eligible for an “FHA Repayment
Plan” given the financial information he had provided.
Specifically, the letter stated:
Do Not Support
unable to offer you a plan because after reviewing the
financial information you provided to us, we have determined
that one or more of the following reasons apply:
You do not have sufficient net income to pay the
The proposed payment is not feasible.
Your Initial payment on the Payment Plan is not
The written financial information we received from
you does not support the proposed payment.
Id. at 3. The letter also explained that Plaintiff
was not eligible for an “FHA Trial ...