We’ll never know if the Toones’ claims were valid. Well, we have a pretty good idea, actually, thanks to the court’s dicta on the matter, but we can’t help but wonder if they would’ve had a chance to adduce additional evidence that would’ve supported their claims had they made it to discovery. Instead, their case becomes another reminder as to the importance of proper pleading and paperwork.

The Toones also alleged that the subsequent transfers were invalid due to “robo-signing,” which made the transfers fraudulent, but alas, “bald allegations of robo-signing do not suffice under the Rule 8(a)(2) standard set by Iqbal.” They also pled no facts to support any other allegations of fraud.

Their next cause of action was a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act violation. However, again, they failed to plead facts with sufficient specificity. The court speculated that the facts in a paragraph elsewhere in the brief could have been meant to support the FDCPA claims, specifically facts arguing that the Toomes were not in default because they made their HAMP payments.

However, the court noted two problems with such an argument: first, you can’t raise an issue for the first time during your oral argument on appeal. Second, the Toomes never sent in the HAMP-required paperwork.

Breach of contract? Not enough facts. Breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing? Not enough facts. RESPA violations for not responding to written requests for information? Forgot to plead actual damages.

And though we’re skipping through a few other deficient claims and arguments here, the final point comes from the denied leave to amend the complaint. That’s right – the court refused to allow them to revise their paperwork to plead sufficient facts, and you’ll never guess why.

The amended complaint failed to plead sufficient facts … again. The lower court held that the revised complaint wouldn’t have fixed the deficient claims, and therefore properly denied the leave to amend.

There were a number of claims here, from FDCPA to RESPA, all of which failed because two attempts to plead properly were fumbled. This makes us wonder – are they and their attorney that terrible at paperwork, or did their case simply lack merit to begin with?

Related Resources:

  • Toone v. Wells Fargo (Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals)
  • Does the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Bar Your Foreclosure Appeal? (FindLaw’s Tenth Circuit Blog)
  • No Split-Note Defense: MERS Can Foreclose on Homes (FindLaw’s Tenth Circuit Blog)

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Civil Rights

Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court

Criminal

Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records

Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules