White v. America West Lender Services LLC

Background

Timothy White sued Chase Bank, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. (MERS), Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), and America West Lender Services LLC (AWLS) after a nonjudicial foreclosure. The property had secured a $90,000 loan obtained by White’s father, Gordon W. White, who died in 2004. The loan and deed of trust were later assigned to Chase Bank and then Nationstar, and Nationstar substituted AWLS as trustee. AWLS conducted the foreclosure sale on September 24, 2024.

White alleged that, after his father’s death, he received authority to administer the estate, tried to assume the loan, received some property-related documents, and made loan payments until August 2022. He did not allege that he ever completed the loan assumption, took title to the property, or entered into an agreement with any defendant. He alleged that the foreclosure sale produced $489,552 in surplus funds, which he did not receive.

White filed a Corrected Second Amended Complaint asserting eight causes of action: wrongful foreclosure, breach of contract, violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, violation of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, emotional distress, misrepresentation or deceptive practices, slander of title, and conversion. White did not respond to the defendants’ motions to dismiss and did not appear at the April 22, 2025 hearing.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Nationstar and Fannie Mae brought a factual challenge under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which allows dismissal when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. They argued that White lacked standing because he never assumed the loan and had no title to the property.

The court considered public records submitted by the defendants, including the deed of trust, assignments, foreclosure documents, and trustee’s deed upon sale. Neither White’s name nor his signature appeared on those exhibits. Because White did not respond to the factual challenge or provide evidence establishing jurisdiction, the court held that he had not met his burden. It granted Nationstar and Fannie Mae’s motion to dismiss on that ground.

Pleading Sufficiency

The court denied Chase Bank and MERS’s Rule 8 argument. Rule 8 requires a complaint to provide a short, plain, and understandable statement that gives defendants fair notice of the claims. The court found that White’s Second Amended Complaint was clearer than his earlier pleadings and identified specific defendants in the causes of action.

The court nevertheless found that none of White’s claims was plausible under Rule 12(b)(6), which requires dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a claim for relief.

Claims

- Wrongful foreclosure: The court held that White did not allege that he was a borrower or trustor who suffered the required harm. He also admitted that he had not paid the outstanding loan balance, and he did not plausibly allege an exception to the payment requirement. Count One was dismissed. - Breach of contract: White did not allege that he had contracts with Chase Bank, Nationstar, MERS, or Fannie Mae, or that he performed under any such contract. Count Two was dismissed. - Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: The court held that White did not allege facts showing that AWLS or Nationstar qualified as debt collectors under the Act. It also explained that foreclosure activities under a deed of trust are not debt collection under the Act. Count Three was dismissed. - Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act: Because this state-law claim generally follows the requirements of the federal debt-collection statute, it failed for the same reasons. Count Four was dismissed. - Emotional distress: The court construed this count as intentional infliction of emotional distress. It held that White did not allege unlawful, extreme, or outrageous conduct. The court stated that the distress caused by losing the home did not itself show that the defendants acted unlawfully or outrageously. - Misrepresentation or deceptive practices: The court construed this count as intentional misrepresentation. White did not provide the required specific facts identifying what was said or done, when, where, by whom, or how. The opinion states that this claim was dismissed as “count eight,” although the complaint’s list identifies it as Count Six. - Slander of title: White did not allege that he ever held title to the property. The court held that he could not claim slander based on public recordings that did not include his name. Count Seven was dismissed. - Conversion: The court held that conversion applies to personal property, not real property. The final cause of action was dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Failure to Prosecute and Disposition

The court additionally dismissed the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because White did not respond to the defendants’ motions and did not attend the hearing. The court stated that the public documents showed that the defects in White’s pleadings could not be corrected by amendment. The motions to dismiss were granted, the Second Amended Complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and judgment was ordered. Chase Bank and MERS’s alternative motion for a more definite statement was denied as moot.