Wang v. Bank Of America Corporation

Background

Hao Zhe Wang, representing himself, asserted claims arising from three sets of events. First, he alleged that Bank of America Corporation, through statements by its employee Alan Kreit, led him to pursue a mortgage refinancing that Bank of America ultimately declined to complete. Second, Wang alleged that after Bank of America transferred servicing of his mortgage to Specialized Loan Servicing LLC, the account showed charges and a balance higher than he expected, and SLS continued collecting payments after he disputed the amounts. Third, Wang alleged that Bank of America reported the loan as delinquent and conducted an inadequate investigation after credit-reporting agencies sent it his dispute. Wang later sought to add allegations concerning SLS’s rebranding as Newrez LLC doing business as Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing and its handling of later payment and credit-reporting issues.

The court considered the factual allegations as true for purposes of the dismissal motions, but stated that it was making no factual findings. Because Wang was representing himself, the court read his allegations liberally while still applying the legal pleading requirements.

Claims Related to Refinancing

The court granted Bank of America’s motion to dismiss Wang’s claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, promissory fraud, and unfair or deceptive practices under New York General Business Law § 349 insofar as they arose from the unsuccessful refinancing application. The court held that Wang did not plausibly allege an actionable false or misleading statement. The promised rate lock was stated to expire at the end of March, when the refinancing had not closed. The statement that the tax-form discrepancy was the only issue delaying underwriting was not shown to be false, and Kreit’s statement that underwriters could use an earlier tax return concerned a possible future decision rather than a guaranteed result. The court also found no allegation that Bank of America improperly prevented Wang from pursuing refinancing with the competitor.

Mortgage-Payment Claims

The court held that Wang did not adequately plead a breach-of-contract claim against Bank of America or SLS because he did not provide the full loan agreement, fee schedule, or sufficient details about his payment history. The court therefore granted the dismissal of that claim, while granting Wang leave to replead it with the missing information.

The court denied the motions to dismiss Wang’s General Business Law § 349 claim concerning mortgage payments against both Bank of America and SLS. Wang plausibly alleged that the companies used a standard practice of adding fees and charges to online payment accounts that were not reflected in customer statements, charging more than the agreed fee schedules allowed, and failing to credit timely payments. The court concluded that these allegations plausibly described consumer-oriented, materially deceptive conduct that injured Wang.

Federal Debt-Collection Claims

The court denied SLS’s motion to dismiss Wang’s claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Wang plausibly alleged that SLS was a debt collector because SLS described itself that way in its automated telephone system and collected payments for Bank of America. He also plausibly alleged that SLS violated the statute by continuing to collect after receiving his written dispute without responding or verifying the debt. The court further held that Wang’s allegations about fees exceeding the mortgage agreement supported a federal debt-collection claim. The court rejected SLS’s argument that Wang’s dispute was untimely because SLS allegedly failed to provide the required debt notice; the court concluded that Wang’s March 22, 2023 dispute fell within the applicable thirty-day period measured from SLS’s March 9 communication.

Fair Credit Reporting Act Claim

The court granted Bank of America’s motion to dismiss Wang’s Fair Credit Reporting Act claim. Wang plausibly alleged that Bank of America received notice of his credit-reporting dispute from a credit-reporting agency, but he did not plausibly allege that Bank of America failed to conduct a reasonable investigation. The court found that Bank of America’s request for information about possible identity theft was not unreasonable on the allegations presented. Wang did not respond to that request, and he did not allege that Bank of America received information showing its delinquency report was inaccurate.

Motion to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Wang’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. The proposed amendment added allegations about SLS’s conduct after May 1, 2024, and Wang was also allowed to provide the missing information supporting his breach-of-contract claim against Bank of America. The court ordered Wang to file the second amended complaint by July 23, 2025.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick’s final dispositions were: Bank of America’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part; SLS’s motion to dismiss was denied; and Wang’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint was granted. Specifically, Bank of America’s motion was granted as to the refinancing-related claims, the breach-of-contract claim, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act claim, and denied as to Wang’s General Business Law claim. SLS’s motion was denied as to Wang’s General Business Law and federal debt-collection claims.