But apparently without any explanation.
In Navin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:15-cv-671 (MPS), 2017 WL 4401454 (D. Conn. September 29, 2017), the District Judge was consistent.
The Judge had previously dismissed the claims of a mortgagor's father-in-law based on the mortgagor having had to pay lender force-placed insurance (LFPI) charges. The mortgagor, one Mr. Navin, now being deceased, the proper party to pursue his estate's claims was not the father-in-law, one Mr. O'Reilly.
The District Judge, the Honorable Michael P. Shea, gave Mr. O'Reilly leave to amend. Mr. O'Reilly responded in part with a motion to substitute the deceased mortgagor's administrator. Judge Shea denied that motion after the administrator refused the substitution.
However, Mr. O'Reilly's motion for substitution was not simply denied. "As a result," said the District Judge, "Navin's claims are dismissed with prejudice."
Apparently, it was enough that there was no-one left to pursue the deceased mortgagor's LFPI claims, so that the Court could see no alternative to dismissing those claims with prejudice since no-one was available to present them.
Mr. O'Reilly's motion was not helped, in any event, by the Court's denial of Mr. O'Reilly's leave to amend. Mr. O'Reilly sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint to add "allegations that the mortgage and assignment at issue are void because American Brokers' Conduit is a fictitious entity, and that use of a fictitious entity in foreclosure actions brought by Defendants was fraudulent[.]" Parenthetically, it is unclear from the most recent opinion who or what was "American Brokers' Conduit," but presumably they or it was supposedly an assignee or a mortgage servicer, or both.
The District Judge reiterated his previous ruling dismissing each of Mr. O'Reilly's seven counts in his First Amended Complaint, which he rather unfortunately repeated in his Second Amended Complaint. The Judge previously ruled that the same counts failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, essentially all for the same reason: Mr. O'Reilly was a stranger to the mortgage at bar and he did not pay the LFPI charges.
In the September 2017 opinion, the Judge added four reasons why the new allegations were barred by res judicata in Connecticut.
Finally, as if all that were not enough, the Judge said that "[e]ven if O'Reilly's proposed new allegations were not precluded, they would fail on the merits and could not withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)."
So it went for a stranger to the mortgage who did not pay the lender force-placed insurance charges. His claims failed. Twice.
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2017 by Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.
Comments