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.

Knight-Harris v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, S.D. New York

January 18, 2017

SHIRLEY KNIGHT-HARRIS, Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee for Golden West Financial Corporation Securitized Trust, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          EDGARDO RAMOS, W.S.D.J.

         This case arises out of the allegedly abusive practices employed by mortgage loan servicers in the wake of the housing crisis. Pro se Plaintiff Shirley Knight-Harris brings this action against Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Golden West Financial Corporation Securitized Trust. Before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6).

         For the reasons discussed below, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.

         I. Background

         The Amended Complaint is confusingly written and difficult to follow. However, the Court remains obligated to construe a pro se complaint liberally, Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 122 (2d Cir. 2011), and to interpret a pro se plaintiff's claims as raising the strongest arguments that they suggest. Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006). The obligation to be lenient while reading a pro se plaintiff's pleadings “applies with particular force when the plaintiff's civil rights are at issue.” Jackson v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Labor, 709 F.Supp.2d 218, 224 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 200 (2d Cir. 2004)).

         Accordingly, the Court accepts the following allegations from the Amended Complaint (“Am. Compl.”) (Doc. 6) as true for purposes of this motion. See Koch v. Christie's Int'l PLC, 699 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 2012); Vail v. City of New York, 68 F.Supp.3d 412, 427 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). The Court also takes judicial notice of the Deed of Trust, Notice of Default and Election to Sell, and the Notice of Trustee Sale, as they are incorporated by reference in the Amended Complaint. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 22, 26, 49.

         A. The Home Affordable Modification Program

         In early 2009, as part of an effort to mitigate the housing crisis and keep borrowers out of foreclosure, the federal government established the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”). Id. ¶ 13. In general terms, HAMP is designed to lower the monthly mortgage payments of participating borrowers to an affordable level. Id. Participating mortgage servicers offer temporary modifications to qualifying homeowners via agreements that set forth various conditions that must be met in order for the borrower to obtain a permanent loan modification. Id. at ¶¶ 17, 18. Foreclosure proceedings are suspended during the evaluation and trial periods. Id. at ¶ 15. Borrowers who ultimately do not qualify for HAMP must be nonetheless considered for alternative foreclosure prevention options. Id. at ¶ 14.

         In April 2009, Wells Fargo signed a Servicer Participation Agreement with the United States Treasury, in its capacity as a loan servicer, agreeing to comply with HAMP requirements and to perform loan modification and other foreclosure prevention services described in the program guidelines. Id. at ¶ 14.

         B. The Knight-Harris Loan

         Plaintiff resides in Los Angeles, California. Id. at ¶ 5. On July 18, 2006, Plaintiff executed a $360, 500 Adjustable Rate Mortgage Note (“Note”) with World Savings Bank, FSB[1]to refinance her property. Id. at ¶ 22. That same day, she also executed a Deed of Trust with World Savings Bank, FSB, which was secured by her property. Declaration of Zalika T. Pierre in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (“Pierre Decl.”) (Doc. 15) Ex. E. The Deed of Trust was recorded on July 27, 2006 in Recorder's Office in Los Angeles County. Plaintiff subsequently failed to make her loans payments and defaulted on her mortgage loan.[2] Am. Compl. ¶ 22.

         Plaintiff alleges that she had been applying for loan modifications for almost five years. Id. at ¶ 54. Though she has been granted two modifications to her loan, her most recent application has been denied, despite meeting the requisite qualifications. Id. at ¶ 22, 49-54. As a result of Plaintiff's default, on June 23, 2014, a Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust was mailed to Plaintiff at the property address. Pierre Decl. Ex. G. On March 21, 2016, due to Plaintiff's failure to cure her default, a Notice of Trustee Sale was issued. Id. at Ex. H. Plaintiff thereafter filed for bankruptcy and the foreclosure sale was postponed. Id. at Ex. I.

         II. Procedural History

         Plaintiff commenced the instant action on April 7, 2016.[3] (Doc. 1) On June 13, 2016, Defendant requested a pre-motion conference to seek leave to file a motion to dismiss. (Doc. 4) The Court granted Defendant's application, scheduled a pre-motion conference for June 29, 2016, and ordered Plaintiff to respond to Defendant's request by June 22, 2016. (Doc. 5) On June 17, 2016, however, in lieu of responding to Defendant's request, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 6) Plaintiff did not reply to Defendant's letter request nor did she appear at the ...


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.