“Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants dressed up an illegal scheme to appear as a legitimate transaction is sufficient to deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the issue of equitable tolling.”
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THOMAS J. RIDDLE, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM
Schiller, J.
April 11, 2013
Thomas Riddle, Marilyn Fischer, and Jeffrey Stanton filed a class action lawsuit against Bank
of America Corporation (“BAC”), Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”), Bank of America Reinsurance
Corporation (“BOARC”) (collectively, “BOA Defendants”), United Guaranty Residential Insurance
Company (“United”), Triad Guaranty Insurance Corporation (“Triad”), Republic Mortgage Insurance
Company (“Republic”), Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (“MGIC”), Radian Guaranty, Inc.
(“Radian”), and Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corporation (“Genworth”). Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants were all participants in a scheme that violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
(“RESPA”). Specifically, BOA referred borrowers to private mortgage insurance providers in
exchange for a kickback of the private mortgage insurance payment to BOA. In reality, however,
BOA did not assume any real risk in exchange for the payments, thus rendering illusory the
reinsurance coverage it assumed. Presently before the Court are the motions to dismiss of BOA
Defendants, United, Radian, and Genworth.1 They argue that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by
RESPA’s statute of limitations. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the motions.
“
