United States District Court, D. Maryland
RICHARD D. BENNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17, 2019, this Court granted four Motions to Dismiss filed by
the Defendants in this matter, Wells Fargo Bank, NA.
("Wells Fargo"); Mark S. Devan, Thomas P. Dore,
Brian S. McNair, and Angela Nasuta (collectively, the
"Substitute Trustees"); and DSDJ Properties and
Daniel Wilson ("Wilson") (collectively, the
"Defendants") and dismissed with prejudice all
claims asserted by Plaintiff Nicole Rena McCrea
("Plaintiff or "McCrea"). Now pending is
McCrea's self-styled Rule 59(e) and 60(b) Motion for
Relief from the June 17, 2019 Order of Dismissal (ECF No. 39)
(hereinafter, the "Motion for Reconsideration").
The parties' submissions have been reviewed, and no
hearing is necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md.
2018). For the reasons stated herein, McCrea's Motion for
Reconsideration (ECF No. 39) is DENIED.
facts of this case have been discussed at length in a
previous Memorandum Opinion. (ECF No. 37.) In sum, McCrea
alleges that Wells Fargo improperly administered the Home
Affordable Modification Program ("HAMP"), a
mortgage assistance program established by the Treasury
Department under the Troubled Asset Relief Program
("TARP"). See Allen v. GtiMortgage, Inc.,
CCB-10-2740, 2011 WL 3425665, at *1 (D. Md. Aug. 4, 2011)
(explaining the history of the program). In 2010, Wachovia
Mortgage and McCrea agreed to a mortgage loan
modification under HAMP guidelines. (Compl. at ¶ 15.) In
June 2014, McCrea defaulted on the modified loan.
(Id. at ¶ 17.) Wells Fargo subsequently denied
McCrea's repeated requests for a second loan modification
under HAMP. (Id. at ¶ 18.) McCrea alleges that
Wells Fargo's denials were unreasonable, and that they
frequently rejected her modification applications by sending
her "various unwarranted addendums asking pier] to
articulate and/or clarify one or two random and trivial items
in her modification application." (Id. at
23, 2016, Wells Fargo sent McCrea a Notice of Intent to
Foreclose and appointed the Substitute Trustees.
(Id. at ¶ 27.) On October 19, 2016, the
Substitute Trustees initiated a foreclosure action in the
Circuit Court for Charles County captioned Devan, et al.
v. McCrea, case number 08-C-16-002735. (Id. at
¶ 28.) During foreclosure proceedings, Wells Fargo
continued to deny McCrea's request for HAMP assistance.
(Id. at ¶¶ 33-43.)
January 2017, Wells Fargo offered McCrea a proprietary loan
modification, and she began making trial payments under a
Trial Payment Plan. (Id. at ¶¶ 37-48.) On
April 17, 2017, Wells Fargo provided McCrea with instructions
for finalizing the loan modification. (Id. at ¶
49.) The instructions required her to sign a loan
modification agreement by May 2, 2017, or else Wells Fargo
would be "unable to complete the modification" and
could resume collection communications and legal proceedings.
(Id.) On the May 2, 2017 deadline, McCrea informed
Wells Fargo mat she would be seeking an "independent
review" of the proposed Loan Modification Agreement.
(Id. at ¶ 51.) The next day, McCrea filed a
complaint with the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development and the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau accusing Wells Fargo of committing fraud by, inter
alia, refusing her requests for a HAMP modification.
(Id. at ¶ 52.) Between May 3, 2017 and June 20,
2017, Wells Fargo representatives called her "at least
three times a week and often twice a day" seeking her
signature on the April 17, 2017 modification agreement.
(Id. at ¶ 54.) In response, McCrea accused
Wells Fargo of harassment. (Id.)
foreclosure action resumed in the summer of 2017. In July
2017, the Substitute Trustees filed a bond with the Circuit
Court for Charles County, Maryland and a foreclosure sale was
scheduled for August 11, 2017. (Id. at ¶¶
61-62.) On August 9, 2017, McCrea filed an Emergency Motion
to Stay and Dismiss Foreclosure Sale in which she asserted
numerous state and federal causes of action as purported
defenses to the foreclosure action. (Substitute Trustees Ex.
2, ECF No. 33-3.) The Circuit Court denied McCrea's
motion, and her home was subject to a foreclosure sale on
August 11, 2017. (Id. at ¶ 70.) Subsequendy,
McCrea appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. The
Court of Special Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court, finding
that McCrea's motion "failed to allege with
particularity the factual bases of the defenses asserted
against the validity of the lien or lien instruments and the
right of the Trustees to foreclose." McCrea p.
Devan, No. 1320, Sept. Term, 2017, 2019 WL 1200732, at
*8 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. March 13, 2019), cert,
dismissed 464 Md. 21 (June 21, 2019).
McCrea challenged the foreclosure in state court, she also
pressed claims in this Court. On August 13, 2018, McCrea
initiated this action pro se. Just as in state
court, McCrea asserted a laundry list of claims presented in
a single paragraph, as follows:
Based on the above mentioned actions of Wells Fargo and the
Substitute Trustees, the Plaintiff asserts causes of action
and/or claims under: Title VI Discrimination; Title VI
Retaliation, Fair Housing Act Discrimination; Fraud in the
Inducement; Detrimental Reliance; Substantive
Unconscionability; Procedural Unconscionability;
Misrepresentation under Maryland Consumer Protection Act;
Material Omission under Maryland Consumer Protection Act;
Common Law Fraudulent Misrepresentation; Reformation of the
Mortgage; Material Omission under Maryland Mortgage Fraud
Protection Act; Material Misrepresentation under Maryland
Mortgage Fraud Protection Act; Violation of Maryland Consumer
Debt Collection Act; Violation of Maryland Real Property
Article; Common Law Breach of Contract; Misrepresentation
under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act against Wells
Fargo; Misrepresentation under the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act against Plaintiffs; Violation of the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act; Violation of the Maryland Equal
Credit Opportunity Act; Violation of the Truth in Lending
Act; Violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
("RESPA"). 12 C.F.R. § 1024.41 (Regulation X
of RESPA) Violation of Regulation X of the RESPA.
(Compl. ¶ 98.)
McCrea listed over twenty common law and statutory causes of
action without any explanation of their relevance to her
17, 2019, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and
dismissing McCrea's claims with prejudice. (ECF No. 37,
38.) This Court held that McCrea's claims failed because
they were premised on her unsuccessful applications for a
second HAMP mortgage loan modification, for which there is no
private cause of action and that she otherwise failed to
adequately plead any of her two-dozen causes of action. (ECF
No. 37 at 12-14.) As an alternative basis for dismissal, this
Court determined that McCrea's claims were barred by the
doctrine of res judicata. (Id. at 15- 18.) McCrea
filed a Morion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 39) on July 15,
2019 which all Defendants oppose.
Motion for Reconsideration is brought under both Rules 59(e)
and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 59(e)
authorizes a district court to alter, amend, or vacate a
prior judgment, and Rule 60 provides for relief from
judgment. See Katyle v. Penn Nat'lGaming
Inc.,637 F.3d 462, 471 n.4 (4th Cir. 2011), cert,
denied,132 S.Ct. 115 (2011). As this Court explained ...