Article

Note: Aaron Saris (Plaintiff) owned real property located in Massachusetts with a mortgage serviced by Cenlar FSB. Subsequently, Plaintiff conveyed the real property by quitclaim deed and the “mortgage was then discharged.” Cenlar FSB, however, “transferred servicing responsibilities for the mortgage to” Flagstar Bank (Defendant). Defendant later erroneously debited USD 1,354.37 from Plaintiff’s bank account for a mortgage payment.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sued Defendant in a five count complaint and Defendant moved to the dismiss all counts of the complaint for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Hillman, J., granted Defendant’s motion.

Plaintiff’s first three causes of action alleged violation of Massachusetts’ criminal statutes, namely criminal larceny, stealing by confining or putting in fear and uttering false or forged documents. The Judge noted that “criminal statutes do not support civil causes of action” and dismissed those claims.

Plaintiff also asserted a claim under Massachusetts’ adoption of Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) Article 5-109 (Fraud and Forgery) which the Judge noted covers “circumstances where an issuer must honor the presentation of a letter of credit despite forgery of a required document.” Plaintiff alleged that Defendant had submitted false documents to claim funds for a non-existing loan “thru an ACH (Auto Clearing House) or directly to Bank of America”, the latter presumably being Plaintiff’s bank. Because Plaintiff did not allege that “Defendant honored or dishonored a letter of credit”, the Judge dismissed the claim.

Finally, Plaintiff claimed that Defendant acted negligently in erroneously debiting his account. The Judge noted that Plaintiff failed to “plausibly plead” that Defendant owed him a duty of care as Massachusetts law does not recognize such a duty between a borrower and lender. Moreover, the evidence established that Defendant had already reimbursed Plaintiff for its error and thus, as the Judge noted, even a plausible claim of negligence by Defendant would require Plaintiff to demonstrate some damage or injury. Accordingly, the Judge dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety.

[MJK]

COPYRIGHT OF THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING LAW & PRACTICE

The views expressed in this Case Summary are those of the Institute of International Banking Law and Practice and not necessarily those of the ICC or Coastline Solutions.