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.

Estate of Coineandubh v. Boeing Employees Credit Union

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

August 16, 2019

ESTATE OF CARRIE ANDREA COINEANDUBH, Plaintiff,
v.
BOEING EMPLOYEES CREDIT UNION, a Washington nonprofit corporation, Defendant.

          ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM DKT. # 10

          HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON JUDGE.

         INTRODUCTION

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Boeing Employees Credit Union's (BECU) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Dkt. # 10. The underlying dispute concerns Plaintiff Estate of Carrie Andrea Coineandubh's obligations pursuant to a home mortgage loan. The Estate alleges that BECU's sub-servicer, Cenlar FSB, entered into a loan modification agreement that BECU, the master servicer, subsequently reneged on. The Estate sued under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), Washington's Consumer Loan Act (CLA), and Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA).

         In its Motion, BECU argues that the Estate's RESPA claim does not plausibly allege that BECU's conduct violated the Act or that it caused the Estate damages. BECU also contends that the CLA does not provide a private right of action and that BECU is exempt from liability under the law because it is a credit union. Finally, BECU argues that the Estate's CPA claim does not plausibly allege that BECU's actions were unfair or deceptive or impacted the public interest.

         For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS BECU's Motion.

         BACKGROUND

         The Complaint contains the following allegations. Carrie Andrea Coineandubh, along with her then-husband, received a home mortgage loan from BECU on March 1, 2006, to finance their purchase of property in Tacoma, WA. Ms. Coineandubh remained obligated under the loan until she died intestate on April 9, 2018. At that time, the loan had been in default for over two years. Dkt. # 11-1 at 2. Ms. Coineandubh's brother Kyle C. Olive was appointed administrator of the Estate. Olive informed BECU of this information on March 14, 2018, and requested all information related to the loan account but BECU did not respond.

         Olive then reached out to Cenlar FSB, which was then acting as the servicer on the loan. Cenlar did not immediately respond, but Olive was allegedly able to get Cenlar to agree to a Loan Modification in August 2018.[1] On behalf of the Estate, Olive made payments under the new terms through January 2019, but on January 17 BECU informed Olive that the Estate was “ineligible for loan modification because the Federal National Mortgage Association (‘Fannie Mae') was the owner and assignee of the Loan and that the Estate did not provide the requested documentation in a timely fashion.” Dkt. # 1 at 3. BECU refused to accept Olive's proffered payment for February.

         BECU requested that the Estate submit a Mortgage Assistance Application by February 21, 2019, and the Estate did so on January 29. The Estate also requested that BECU “explain the legal basis whereby [it] had rejected the previously agreed to Loan Modification Agreement.” Id. On March 1, BECU requested that the Estate provide documents to support its application. The Estate partially complied and renewed its inquiry about the Modification Agreement.

         On April 3, BECU informed the Estate that Olive's request to be considered successor-in-interest was incomplete and that it needed to submit additional information within 90 days. However, the next day BECU informed the Estate that the deadline had passed and the Estate needed to submit a $61, 608.92 payment immediately. The Estate apparently did not pay this sum but did submit a “qualified written request” on April 23 asking for the following information: “(1) a copy of the original promissory note; (2) a copy of the deed of trust; (3) documentation related to any scheduled foreclosure sale; (4) a signed lender acknowledgement for the first Loan Modification Agreement; and (5) any documents demonstrating proof defendant notified the Estate of defendant's intent to accelerate payment of the Loan.” Id. at 4. BECU did not respond.

         BECU informed the Estate on May 10 that it had failed to provide sufficient documentation validating the Estate's ownership rights over the Tacoma property. The Estate provided additional documents verifying Olive's successor-in-interest status a week later and renewed its request for information regarding a foreclosure. On June 6, BECU informed the Estate that a foreclosure sale was scheduled for June 21. However, the sale was subsequently cancelled and there is currently no sale pending. Dkt. # 11-2.

         The Estate sued on June 10, 2019. The Complaint alleges “property damages, including attorney fees and costs, in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than $288, 900.00.” Dkt. # 1 at 7.

         DISCUSSION

         1. ...


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.