Summary
The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit granted supervisory writs and reversed portions of the trial court’s judgment denying Bank of America, N.A.’s motion for summary judgment. The court held that the Stockstills’ Truth in Lending Act claims were prescribed and that the allegedly improper private mortgage insurance charges did not fall within TILA’s disclosure requirements. The court also held that Bank of America was not a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because it succeeded BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. through merger and stood in the creditor’s shoes, dismissing both sets of claims with prejudice.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Stockstills' TILA claims were prescribed under TILA's one-year limitations period.
- Whether the allegedly improper private mortgage insurance charges fell within TILA's disclosure requirements.
- Whether Bank of America, N.A., as successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., was a debt collector subject to the FDCPA.
Holdings
- The Stockstills' TILA claims were time-barred on their face because they were asserted more than one year after the loan transaction was consummated and more than one year after the alleged private mortgage insurance charges were added; no exception to the one-year prescriptive period was established.
- The allegedly improper private mortgage insurance charges did not fall within the purview of TILA's disclosure requirements.
- Bank of America, N.A. was not a debt collector within the meaning of the FDCPA because, as BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P.'s successor through merger, it stood in the mortgagee's shoes as creditor and servicer.
Key quotations
“Thus, we find the Stockstills’ TILA claims are time- barred on their face, and the Stockstills have provided no evidence or argument to establish any exception to the one-year prescriptive period.” (1)
“Thus, we find Bank of America, N.A stepped into the shoes of BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. as servicer of the loan when Bank of America, N.A. acquired BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. through merger and Bank of America, N.A is not a “debt collector” within meaning of the FDCPA.” (2)
Factual background
The Stockstills alleged TILA violations concerning a promissory note signed on November 3, 2006, and allegedly improper private mortgage insurance charges added to their escrow account on February 25, 2010. They first pleaded their TILA claims in a reconventional demand filed on May 20, 2011. Bank of America, N.A. acquired BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. through merger on July 1, 2011, and an affidavit established that no entity other than Bank of America, N.A. was shown to own the loan when Bank of America began servicing it.
Procedural history
The Stockstills filed a reconventional demand on May 20, 2011, asserting TILA and FDCPA claims. The Twenty-Third Judicial District Court for Ascension Parish denied Bank of America, N.A.'s motion for summary judgment on those claims in an April 15, 2025 judgment. The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit granted supervisory writs, reversed the relevant portions of the judgment, and dismissed the TILA and FDCPA claims with prejudice.