Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Pulliam v. Pennymac Mortgage Investment Trust Holding I, LLC

United States District Court, District of Maine

June 12, 2014

RICHARD PULLIAM, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
PENNYMAC MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST HOLDING I, LLC, et al., Defendants.

Plaintiff RICHARD PULLIAM represented by RICHARD PULLIAM

Plaintiff TINA PULLIAM represented by TINA PULLIAM

Defendant PENNYMAC MORTGAGE INVESTMENT TRUST HOLDING I LLC represented by JOSEPH J. PATRY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES LLC represented by JOSEPH J. PATRY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

RECOMMENDED DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS

John C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge

In this action, Plaintiffs Richard and Tina Pulliam seek a declaratory judgment, equitable remedies, and other relief related to a state court foreclosure proceeding regarding certain real property located in Auburn, Maine. The matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss of Defendants PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust Holding I, LLC and PennyMac Loan Services, LLC (ECF No. 11).[1]

Through their motion, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Following a review of the pleadings, and after consideration of the parties’ arguments, as explained below, the recommendation is that the Court grant the motion.

Factual Background

The facts set forth herein are derived from Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, which facts are deemed true for purposes of evaluating Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Blanco v. Bath Iron Works Corp., 802 F.Supp.2d 215, 221 (D. Me. 2011). In addition, the facts can be informed by any exhibits attached to Plaintiffs’ pleadings, to the extent the exhibits are material to the motions to dismiss. Freeman v. Town of Hudson, 714 F.3d 29, 35 (1st Cir. 2013) (“On a motion to dismiss, a court ordinarily may only consider facts alleged in the complaint and exhibits attached thereto[.]”). The Court also may take judicial notice of matters of public record, including state court filings. Haley v. City of Boston, 657 F.3d 39, 46 (1st Cir. 2011). However, the Court need not credit conclusory legal allegations. Garcia-Catalan v. United States, 734 F.3d 100, 103 (1st Cir. 2013).

Plaintiffs allege that in 2007, they mortgaged the subject property to secure a debt. (First Am. Compl. ¶ 35.) Defendant PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust Holdings I, LLC is the successor mortgagee through assignment. (Id. ¶ 37.) Defendant PennyMac Loan Services, LLC is identified as the loan servicer of the subject mortgage loan. (Id. ¶ 38.) Plaintiffs invoke this Court’s jurisdiction based on the diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy in excess of $75, 000. (Id. ¶ 3.)

According to the Amended Complaint, in April 2013, PennyMac Loan Services commenced a foreclosure action in state court on behalf of PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust Holdings I. In the Amended Complaint, the Pulliams allege that the property “was sold at auction” and “[a] foreclosure deed was recorded in the Androscoggin County Registry of Deeds [on] June 27, 2013.” (Id. ¶ 39.) A review of the Lewiston District Court’s docket, however, of which docket the Court may take judicial notice, contradicts Plaintiff’s allegations. The state court docket reflects that PennyMac Mortgage Investment Trust Holdings filed the foreclosure action on June 26, 2013, that the clerk issued a certificate of foreclosure on the same date, and that the foreclosure action is still pending in the Lewiston District Court. In other words, a review of the state court docket reveals that the state court has not issued a judgment of foreclosure or a deed.[2]

Plaintiffs maintain that they have never been in default because PennyMac Loan Services acted in the role of a surety and “made all Plaintiffs’ payments” under the note “pursuant to their servicing agreement.” (Id. ¶ 40; see also Id . ¶¶ 9-30.)[3] Plaintiffs, therefore, assert that “the foreclosure and foreclosure proceedings were invalid.” (Id. ¶ 41.)

In this action, Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare that the foreclosure “deeds” recorded in the Registry are invalid and void, determine that Defendants have no interest in the property, restrain Defendants from any further foreclosure actions or evictions pending trial, and award ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.