Friesel v. Bank of America, N.A

Background

Cheskel Friesel filed the action against Bank of America, N.A. and JP Morgan Chase, N.A. He alleged that a foreclosure sale occurred on or about June 24, 2019, after which the defendants acquired the property where he resides. According to the complaint, the property is a multifamily building with several tenants. Friesel alleged that the defendants did not perform repairs or maintenance or pay for the building’s heat and electricity. He also alleged that he performed maintenance, repairs, snow removal, and other upkeep, effectively taking on the roles of property manager and superintendent. He further alleged that JP Morgan Chase, on behalf of Bank of America, received insurance proceeds for property repairs but kept the money instead of using it for repairs.

Friesel asserted two unjust enrichment claims, a breach-of-contract claim, a negligence claim, and a claim seeking a constructive trust. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to make a claim legally plausible. Friesel did not file an opposition.

Court’s Analysis

For unjust enrichment, the court held that the complaint did not allege a sufficiently close relationship between Friesel and the defendants. The court found that the property and Friesel’s residence and maintenance of it suggested some relationship, but that the alleged connection was too attenuated to support the claims.

For breach of contract, the court held that Friesel did not allege that the parties mutually agreed that he would manage or maintain the property. The allegation that Friesel had maintained the property did not show that the parties had discussed or agreed to that arrangement. Without allegations showing mutual assent to the essential terms, the court could not find or enforce a contract.

For negligence, the court held that Friesel did not identify a duty that the defendants owed specifically to him. The complaint also did not make clear what relationship, if any, existed between the parties. Because a negligence claim requires a duty owed to the plaintiff, the court dismissed that claim.

For the constructive-trust claim, the court held that the complaint did not allege a confidential or fiduciary relationship, a promise, or communications between the parties that could support the requested remedy. The court recognized that the constructive-trust doctrine can be applied broadly but concluded that the complaint did not allege facts showing any relationship between Friesel and the defendants.

Disposition

Judge Nelson S. Román granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice. The court specifically dismissed the First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action without prejudice. Friesel was granted leave to file an amended complaint by June 5, 2025. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. If Friesel did not file an amended complaint by that date, the claims dismissed without prejudice would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. The defendants were directed to answer or otherwise respond by June 30, 2025 if an amended complaint was filed.