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.

Slimm v. Bank of America Corporation

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

March 31, 2014

JASON SLIMM, BRANDI N. SLIMM, AND ROBERT H. OBRINGER, Plaintiffs,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

JASON D. SLIMM, BRANDI D. SLIMM, BELLMAWR, NEW JERSEY, Pro Se Plaintiffs

ROBERT H. OBRINGER, AUDOBON, NEW JERSEY, Pro Se Plaintiff

AARON M. BENDER, ESQUIRE, TIMOTHY P. OFAK, ESQUIRE, REED SMITH, LLP, PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY, Attorneys for Defendants Bank of America Corporation, Bank, of America, N.A., BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, ReconTrust, Company, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

WILLIAM C. SANDELANDS, SANDELANDS EYET LLP, BEDMINSTER, NJ, Attorney for Defendant Aurora Bank, FSB.

OPINION

NOEL L. HILLMAN, District Judge.

In this matter, pro se plaintiffs challenge a mortgage foreclosure. Before the Court is an uncontested motion to dismiss filed by Aurora Commercial Corp., successor entity to defendant Aurora Bank FSB ("Aurora Bank"). For the reasons expressed below, defendant's motion shall be granted.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The underlying facts were set forth at length in the Court's previous Opinion entered on May 2, 2013, and therefore, only those facts pertinent to the present motion will be repeated in this Opinion. See Slimm v. Bank of America Corp., No. 12-5846 , 2013 WL 1867035 (D.N.J. May 2, 2013). Previously, the Court granted the motion to dismiss filed by defendants Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, ReconTrust Company, N.A., and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (collectively referred to as "Bank of America defendants"). Following the dismissal of the Bank of America defendants, defendant Aurora Bank filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) which is now before the Court. Plaintiffs filed no opposition to Aurora Bank's motion.

On September 28, 2006, Plaintiffs Jason D. Slimm, Brandi N. Slimm, and Robert H. Obringer executed a promissory note evidencing a $187, 267.00 mortgage loan at a six percent (6%) interest rate. Pursuant to the terms of the Note, plaintiffs were required to make a monthly payment of $1, 122.76 to Aurora Financial Group, Inc. for principal and interest due on the loan. Shortly after acquisition of the loan, defendants Bank of America, BAC, and ReconTrust began to service the loan.

On March 10, 2010, Bank of America started foreclosure proceedings on plaintiffs' property. On May 21, 2010, the Slimms contacted Bank of America to attempt to work out an arrangement by which they could avoid foreclosure and maintain possession of their home by participating in a loan modification. According to plaintiffs, Bank of America agreed to a modification of their loan agreement pursuant to the federal Home Affordable Modification Program in December of 2010. On February 3, 2012, the Slimms received notification that their loan modification was denied.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint on September 14, 2012, asserting violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, New Jersey Deceptive Practices Act, promissory estoppel, Truth in Lending Act, and federal civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.[1]

II. JURISDICTION

The Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Specifically, this matter arises under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601, 1692, 1681 and 18 U.S.C. § 1961. The Court exercises supplemental jurisdiction ...


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.