Dowers v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC | 9th Cir. - 15 U.S.C. section 1692f(6) where that provision governed defendants' alleged conduct because it expressly applied to the enforcement of security interests such as a deed of trust

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Dowers v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC | 9th Cir. – 15 U.S.C. section 1692f(6) where that provision governed defendants’ alleged conduct because it expressly applied to the enforcement of security interests such as a deed of trust

Dowers v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC | 9th Cir. – 15 U.S.C. section 1692f(6) where that provision governed defendants’ alleged conduct because it expressly applied to the enforcement of security interests such as a deed of trust

FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DALE DOWERS; DEBRA DOWERS,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC;
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA; WELLS
FARGO BANK MINNESOTA, NA,
Trustee Banc of America Alternative
Loan trust series 2003–2007,
Defendants-Appellees.

SUMMARY*

Home Loans

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district
court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of plaintiffs’ action
asserting claims relating to the defendants’ servicing of
plaintiffs’ home loan.

Affirming in part, the panel held that plaintiffs’ Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act claims under 15 U.S.C.
§§ 1692c(a)(2), 1692d, and 1692e failed because the
defendants did not engage in “debt collection” and were not
acting as “debt collectors.” Reversing in part, the panel
disagreed with the district court’s dismissal with respect to
the claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6), and held that that
provision governed defendants’ alleged conduct because it
expressly applied to the enforcement of security interests
such as a deed of trust. The panel concluded that the district
court should not have dismissed Count Four on the ground
that Nationstar Mortgage, LLC was engaging in conduct
related to non-judicial foreclosure.

The panel held that the district court correctly dismissed
plaintiffs’ claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The panel concluded that plaintiffs’ allegations did not meet
the first element of extreme and outrageous conduct for such
a claim under Nevada law.

The panel held that the district court properly dismissed
plaintiffs’ claim of a violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade
Practices Act. The panel agreed with the district court’s
prediction that the Supreme Court of Nevada would hold that
real estate loans did not fall within the Act.

[…]

Down Load PDF of This Case

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8684 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives