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.

Tyson v. Bank of America N.A.

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division

July 29, 2016

LEONARD K. TYSON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA N.A., et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS [RE: ECF 58]

          BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge

         Defendants Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) and The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Certificateholders of CWHEQ Revolving Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2006-C (“BNYM”) (collectively “Defendants”) filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). The Court, having considered the briefing submitted by the parties and the oral argument presented at the hearing on June 30, 2016, GRANTS Defendants’ motion.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The following information is taken from Plaintiffs’ Complaint and Defendants’ request for judicial notice (“RJN”).[1] On July 11, 2005, Plaintiffs obtained two mortgage loans, in the amounts of $3, 000, 000 and $500, 000, to refinance their principal place of residence located at 13501 Paseo Del Roble Drive, Los Altos, California 94022 (“Property”). Compl. ¶ 1. America’s Wholesale Lender (“AWL”), a subsidiary of Countrywide Home Loans, was the original lender of the two loans. Id. at ¶ 2.

         On January 31, 2008, Plaintiffs, through counsel, sent a letter to AWL accusing it of violating the Federal Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) and demanding rescission of their loans. Id. at ¶ 5; see also Exh. A to Compl., ECF 1-1. According to Plaintiffs, AWL provided them with only four copies of a Notice of Right to Cancel instead of the eight copies required by TILA. Exh. A. to Compl. at 1-2, ECF 1-1. Plaintiffs also allege that the four copies of the Notice of Right to Cancel were defective because they did not indicate when the three-day cancellation began or the final date to cancel the loans. Id. at 2. On February 20, 2008, Countrywide Home Loans (“Countrywide”) denied Plaintiffs’ request to rescind their loans. Exh. B to Compl at 1, ECF 1-1. In its response to Plaintiffs, Countrywide enclosed a form that was signed, dated, and initialed by Plaintiffs acknowledging receipt of the required notices and disclosures under TILA. Id. Countrywide also indicated that if Plaintiffs had additional information, they would consider reopening Plaintiffs’ claim to rescind the mortgage. Id.

         On August 18, 2010, Plaintiffs filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. Exh. C to RJN, ECF 59-3. Plaintiffs listed both of their loans and both creditors of the loans on their Schedule D. Id. at 20. Plaintiffs listed their primary loan as due and owing $3, 216, 938.47 and their second loan as due and owing $533, 776.58. Id. Plaintiffs did not indicate that either loan was contingent or unliquidated. Id. Plaintiffs bankruptcy petition and schedules did not list claims for TILA rescission, declaratory relief, quiet title or mention any violation of TILA or of their right to rescind the loans. Exh. C to RJN, ECF 59-3. On November 6, 2010, the bankruptcy court granted Plaintiffs a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727. Exh. D to RJN, ECF 59-4.

         At some time after February 20, 2008, BANA acquired Countrywide. Compl. ¶¶ 2, 6. Plaintiffs allege that BANA is the current beneficial owner and Nationstar is the servicer of the $3, 000, 000 loan. Id. Plaintiffs believe that BANA sold or assigned the $500, 000 loan to BNYM after learning that Plaintiffs had attempted to rescind that loan. Id. Plaintiffs allege that BNYM is the current beneficial owner and Real Time Resolutions is the servicer of the $500, 000 loan. Id. On April 2, 2015, Plaintiffs brought this action seeking to rescind the two loans pursuant to TILA, declaratory relief, and quiet title. Compl., ECF 1-1.

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         A. Rule 12(c)

         Rule 12(c) provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed - but early enough not to delay trial - a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). “A judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when, taking all allegations in the pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Enron Oil Trading & Transp. Co. v. Walbrook Ins. Co., 132 F.3d 526, 528 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing McGann v. Ernst & Young, 102 F.3d 390, 392 (9th Cir. 1996)). “If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). A court, however, may “consider certain materials-documents attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial notice-without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.” United States v. Ritchie, 342 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2003).

         B. Requests for Judicial Notice

         Defendants request judicial notice of four exhibits: (1) Deed of Trust recorded on July 27, 2005 in the Official Records of Santa Clara County as Document Number 18495803; (2) Deed of Trust and Assignment of Rents recorded on July 27, 2005 in the Official Records of Santa Clara County as Document Number 18495804; (3) Voluntary Petition filed on August 18, 2010 in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California, Case Number 10-58562; (4) Discharge of Debtor filed on November 16, 2010 in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of California, Case Number 10-58562. RJN 2, ECF 59. Plaintiffs do not object to Defendants’ request for judicial notice.

         The Court finds that judicial notice is appropriate as to the existence of all four exhibits. Exhibits 1 and 2 are public records that are recorded in the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office. Exhibits 3 and 4 are court documents that are matters of public record. See Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ request for judicial notice as to all four exhibits.

         III. ...


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.