Roberta Linderman, on behalf of Plaintiff and the class members described herein v. NewRez LLC, doing business as Shellpoint, and The Bank of New York Mellon

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Roberta Linderman’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of her first amended complaint. The court rejected arguments concerning repudiation of a HELOC, the application of Illinois statutes of limitations, the liability of a trustee or assignee under the Truth in Lending Act, and alleged Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act theories. The court also held that Linderman’s requests for declaratory and injunctive relief were derivative remedies rather than independent causes of action.

Holdings

1. Reconsideration was unwarranted because Linderman did not present the kind of new facts or change in controlling law that justified disturbing the prior dismissal decision.
2. The Home Affordable Modification Agreement did not constitute an implicit repudiation of the HELOC.
3. The court declined to hold that the Illinois legislature intended the 1997 amendment to the ten-year statute of limitations to eliminate the longstanding maturity-date rule for other instruments, including the alleged oral HELOC contract.
4. The Bank of New York Mellon was not an original creditor under TILA, and any assignee could not be liable for the alleged TILA violations because those violations were not apparent on the face of the HELOC disclosure statement.
5. The absence of monthly statements required by TILA did not make the alleged interest nonexistent or independently establish FDCPA or ICFA liability.
6. Requests for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief are remedies rather than independent causes of action and therefore were derivative of Linderman's underlying statute-of-limitations and TILA theories.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Linderman identified new facts, a change in controlling law, or another proper basis for reconsidering the October 31, 2025 dismissal order.
2. Whether the Home Affordable Modification Agreement constituted an implicit repudiation of the HELOC that triggered the statute of limitations.
3. Whether Illinois's rules concerning acceleration clauses and maturity dates under the ten-year statute of limitations should be imported into the five-year statute of limitations governing the alleged oral HELOC contract.
4. Whether The Bank of New York Mellon could be liable under the Truth in Lending Act as an original creditor or assignee.
5. Whether alleged violations of the Truth in Lending Act could support Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act claims based on the collection of interest.
6. Whether claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief were independent causes of action or derivative remedies.

Disposition

other