ANITA A. VIDA, Plaintiff,
v.
ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B., a Delaware corporation formerly known as IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B., and FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, a Government Chartered Association formerly known as Fannie Mae, Defendants.
Civ. No. 10-987-AC.
United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division.
December 13, 2010.
OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN V. ACOSTA, Magistrate Judge.
Introduction
Plaintiff Anita A. Vida (“Vida”) alleges claims for breach of contract and fraud, and seeks declaratory judgment cancelling the trust deed and reinstating her mortgage. Defendants OneWest Bank, FSB (“OneWest”) and Federal National Mortgage Association (“FNMA”) (collectively “Defendants”) move for dismissal of all claims. Defendants argue that Vida has failed to state a claim for relief on the following grounds: (1) Vida may not state a breach of contract claim arising under the Home Affordable Mortgage Program (“HAMP”) because it does not authorize a private right of action; (2) Vida has not pleaded her fraud claim with sufficient particularity; and (3) Vida’s allegation that she did not receive adequate notice of the foreclosure action is preempted by state law. Defendants assert generally that Vida has otherwise failed to state claims of breach of contract and fraud.
Continue Below…
[ipaper docId=45599505 access_key=key-1wlzqj1iaow9p5y7yp11 height=600 width=600 /]
© 2010-19 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.
This case is a perfect example of completly playing the system. A judge had bought into all the legal reasons why HAMP does not allow for private right of action by stating speciofics of contract law yet the contract law does not seem to be equally applied in cases where title, note and right to foreclose have been completely subverted by the MERS question and the use of robo-signers.