AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant executed a mortgage note in 2004, which was assigned to the Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, in 2008. The Defendant failed to make mortgage payments, leading the Plaintiff to file a foreclosure complaint in 2008. The Defendant responded with a counterclaim alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) due to failure in notification of the mortgage transfer and issues related to a qualified written request (paras 2-4, 7-9).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, June 2012: Granted the Bank’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings for the foreclosure complaint but did not enter a judgment of foreclosure due to the Defendant’s counterclaim (para 5).
• District Court of Santa Fe County, December 2012: Issued a pretrial order outlining the contested facts and legal issue for a trial scheduled in February 2013 regarding the Defendant’s RESPA-based counterclaim (para 5).
• District Court of Santa Fe County, February 2013: Dismissed the Defendant’s counterclaim with prejudice, ruling that as a matter of law, a RESPA claim could not be made against the Bank. Subsequently, entered a decree of foreclosure in April 2013 (paras 7, 10-11).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that RESPA only applies to loan servicers and since the loan servicer was not a party in the lawsuit, any alleged RESPA violations were not properly before the court. Contended that the Defendant’s exhibits intended to support a RESPA claim were inadmissible as they did not establish the Bank as a proper party for a RESPA claim (paras 6, 10).
• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the exhibits were admissible and that the Bank was liable for a RESPA violation committed by its agent, Bank of America. Claimed that Bank of America's response to his qualified written request was confusing and provided faulty information, thus violating RESPA. Additionally, argued that the statute of limitations for his RESPA claim had not expired and that his counterclaim was dismissed erroneously for lack of evidence (paras 9, 12).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in excluding the Defendant’s exhibits and dismissing his RESPA-based counterclaim against the Bank.
• Whether the Bank, as a principal, was liable for the alleged RESPA violation committed by its agent, Bank of America.
• Whether the Defendant’s RESPA claim was filed within the statute of limitations.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Defendant’s counterclaim and the decree of foreclosure, concluding that the Defendant failed to demonstrate that the district court erred in its judgment (para 28).

Reasons

• Per SUTIN, J. (WECHSLER and ZAMORA, JJ., concurring): The Court of Appeals concluded that the district court properly determined that, as a matter of law, the Bank could not be sued pursuant to RESPA under the circumstances of this case. The court reasoned that RESPA applies only to loan servicers and that the Defendant’s exhibits did not support his RESPA-based counterclaim. Furthermore, the court found that even if an agency relationship existed between the Bank and Bank of America, Bank of America was not the servicer of the loan at the time of the qualified written request, and thus could not have been the subject of a RESPA claim. The court also noted that the Defendant failed to provide any legal or factual basis to support his theory of liability or to demonstrate how his exhibits were relevant to his RESPA claim against the Bank. Additionally, the court observed that the statute of limitations for a RESPA claim against the loan servicer had expired, and thus, any question of when the Defendant’s RESPA claim was filed had no bearing on the issue (paras 14-27).