United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
JEFFREY ALKER MEYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Gary and Gail Powell have filed this pro se lawsuit
against two loan servicing companies-defendants Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC and Litton Loan Servicing LP-in connection
with a state court foreclosure of their property in
Wallingford, Connecticut. Defendants have moved to dismiss. I
conclude that the Powells' state law claims are barred by
either the Rooker-Feldman doctrine or res
judicata. I further conclude that the Powells'
federal law claims fail to state cognizable claims for
relief. Accordingly, I will grant defendants' motion to
the facts as stated in the complaint as true for purposes of
this ruling and also take judicial notice of the filings in
the related foreclosure action in the Superior Court. See
Bailey v. Interbay Funding, LLC, 2018 WL 1660553, at *2
& n.2 (D. Conn. 2018).
2002, the Powells entered into a mortgage loan agreement with
Accredited Home Lenders. Doc. #1 at 2 (¶ 8). The Powells
signed a promissory note for $445, 000 and issued a mortgage
in favor of Accredited. Ibid. Litton would go on to
service the loan until 2011, when Litton was bought out by
Ocwen. Ibid. (¶ 5).
Powells defaulted on the loan and completed a number of trial
periods modifying the loan between 2008 and the end of 2011.
Ibid. (¶¶ 9-10). They complied with all
terms of the modifications and timely paid all the mortgage
payments under the trial period modified plans. Id.
at 4 (¶ 11). According to the Powells, however,
defendants failed to apply their trial period loan payments
against their account, and they never received a mortgage
interest statement from defendants. Id. at 3 (¶
mortgage was transferred in December 2011, and Ocwen began
servicing the mortgage around that time. Id. at 4
(¶ 12). Ocwen did not accept the trial period payments,
and began accelerating the mortgage. Ibid. The
Powells tried and failed to continue modifying the loan
agreement. Ibid. (¶ 13).
2016, Ocwen filed a foreclosure complaint against the Powells
in the Connecticut Superior Court for New Haven.
Ibid. (¶ 14); see also Complaint to
Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v. Powell,
NNH-CV16-6062358-S (Conn. Super. 2016). The parties began
mediation in November 2016. Doc. #1 at 4 (¶ 15). In
April 2017, they agreed on a modification. Ibid.
Gary Powell then sought to clarify whether the modification
agreement included certain escrow amounts for taxes and
insurance, and counsel for Deutsche Bank (not named as a
defendant in this action) informed him that he would a
receive a corrected copy of the agreement confirming that was
the case. Ibid. But the Powells did not receive
those documents, and defendants instead filed a motion for
judgment. Ibid. (¶¶16-17). According to
the Powells, defendants continued to push for foreclosure
instead of honoring the agreement they made during the course
of mediation in April 2017. Id. at 4-5 (¶¶
October 3, 2017, Deutsche Bank-the named state court
foreclosure plaintiff-moved to default the Powells in the
foreclosure action for failure to plead. See Doc.
#119.00 to Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. v.
Powell, NNH-CV16-6062358-S (Conn. Super. 2017). The
Superior Court granted the default, see Doc. #119.10
to id., but then reopened the case when the Powells
filed an answer and several counterclaims. See Docs.
##121.00, 122.10 to id. The Powells'
counterclaims named several new defendants to the action
including Ocwen, see Doc. #121.00 at 4 (¶ 7) to
id., and alleged claims including fraud, quiet
title, breach of contract, violation of the federal Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), breach of fiduciary
duty, and negligence. See Id. at 5 (¶ 15).
Deutsche Bank then successfully moved for summary judgment
and to strike the Powells' counterclaims. See
Docs. ##124.10, 125.10 to id.
23, 2018, the Superior Court entered a judgment of
foreclosure by sale. Doc. #134.00 to id. The Powells
moved to amend the judgment, and the Superior Court entered a
modified judgment on August 27, 2018, extending the sale date
on the property. Doc. #136.00 to id.
Powells then filed this federal lawsuit on November 16, 2018.
Doc. #1. Count I of the complaint alleges that Ocwen and
Litton violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA) in multiple ways: by failing to properly apply
loan payments to the debt under the modification agreement;
by inducing the Powells to enter into a modification without
properly applying their trial plan payments; by sending
communications to the Powells that falsely represented the
character and amount of the debt; and by threatening
foreclosure despite the fact that the Powells were current on
their payments and making them in accordance with their trial
plan. Id. at 5-6 (¶¶ 21-38).
II of the complaint alleges that defendants violated the
federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA) by failing to timely
credit payments and by charging late fees and penalties in
connection with their failure to timely credit payments.
Id. at 7 (¶¶ 43-48).
III of the complaint alleges a claim for breach of contract
including breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
It alleges that the parties had a mortgage contract that
defendants did not properly service such that the mortgage
contract should be deemed void. Id. at 7-8
IV of the complaint alleges a claim for estoppel and unclean
hands. It alleges that defendants have been unjustly enriched
through their misrepresentations and that defendants should
be estopped ...