Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland grants AmeriSave Mortgage Corporation’s and Planet Home Lending LLC’s motions to dismiss claims arising from a residential mortgage loan, alleged loan cancellation, servicing conduct, and foreclosure-related activity. The court dismisses claims concerning mortgage assignment, criminal mail and wire fraud, continuing harm, and VA loan guaranty violations with prejudice, while dismissing fraud, civil RICO, TILA, and unjust enrichment claims without prejudice and allowing the plaintiff 30 days to seek leave to amend.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Williams's motion for default judgment against AmeriSave should be granted when it was filed before entry of clerk's default and AmeriSave filed a motion to dismiss one day after the responsive-pleading deadline.
- Whether the complaint plausibly stated a Maryland fraud or misrepresentation claim.
- Whether a borrower has standing to challenge the assignment or securitization of a mortgage loan.
- Whether the alleged ongoing harm constituted an independent cause of action or a continuing violation tolling the statute of limitations.
- Whether a private citizen may bring claims under the federal criminal mail- and wire-fraud statutes.
- Whether the complaint stated a civil RICO claim by alleging a pattern of racketeering activity.
- Whether the complaint adequately alleged a violation of the Truth in Lending Act.
- Whether unjust enrichment was available where the parties' relationship was governed by an express promissory note.
- Whether 38 U.S.C. § 3732 provides a private cause of action against lenders.
Holdings
- Default judgment was properly denied because Williams filed the motion before the clerk entered default, and, independently, AmeriSave's one-day delay in filing a responsive motion did not warrant default judgment absent undue prejudice.
- Williams failed to state a fraud claim because she did not plausibly allege that Defendants made a false representation or that she relied on any alleged misrepresentation.
- A borrower lacks standing to challenge the assignment or securitization of the borrower's mortgage loan.
- The continuing harm doctrine did not provide an independent cause of action and did not toll the limitations period because the alleged credit, foreclosure, and emotional harms were continuing effects of an earlier alleged misrepresentation rather than new affirmative violations.
- A private citizen lacks standing to bring criminal charges under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343.
- Williams failed to state a civil RICO claim because she did not adequately allege a pattern of racketeering activity; the alleged conduct was a narrow dispute involving one borrower and one mortgage.
- Williams failed to state a TILA claim because she did not allege with sufficient factual specificity how or when Defendants violated TILA's disclosure requirements.
- Williams could not maintain an unjust-enrichment claim because the parties' relationship was governed by a valid promissory note and she did not adequately plead fraud, bad faith, breach, rescission, or another applicable exception.
- Williams's VA loan-guaranty and foreclosure claim was dismissed because she conceded that 38 U.S.C. § 3732 does not provide a private cause of action.
Key quotations
“The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is to “test[] the sufficiency of a complaint,” not to “resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses.””
“borrowers do not have standing to challenge the assignment or securitization of their mortgage loans.”
“As such, the Court will dismiss claim V without prejudice.”
Factual background
On or about May 24, 2022, Williams executed a $735,000 promissory note and mortgage to purchase property in Elkridge, Maryland, with AmeriSave as lender and original servicer. AmeriSave later transferred servicing rights to Planet Home Lending. Williams alleged that AmeriSave issued an IRS Form 1099-C, that Defendants nevertheless continued demanding payments, that her qualified written requests and billing-error notices were not adequately answered, and that Planet Home Lending recorded a false assignment of the property in April 2025. The Court found that the referenced tax form concerned a different debt and that Williams did not plausibly allege a false representation, reliance, unlawful mortgage assignment, RICO pattern, TILA violation, or entitlement to unjust enrichment.
Procedural history
Williams initially filed a related action in the Circuit Court for Howard County, Maryland, seeking, among other relief, to halt foreclosure proceedings. She then filed this federal action on June 27, 2025, along with a motion for a temporary restraining order; the Court denied the TRO on July 8, 2025. Planet Home Lending and AmeriSave moved to dismiss, and Williams moved for default judgment against AmeriSave. The Court granted leave to file a surreply, denied default judgment, granted the motions to dismiss, dismissed claims II through IV, VI, and IX with prejudice, dismissed claims I, V, VII, and VIII without prejudice, and allowed thirty days to seek leave to amend those claims.
Remand instructions
No remand. Williams was granted thirty days to seek leave to file an amended complaint as to claims I, V, VII, and VIII.