Roach v. Option One Mortgage Corp.
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5221, 2009 WL 159704, 598 F. Supp. 2d 741 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The one-year statute of limitations for a Truth in Lending Act (TILA) claim begins to run when the borrower discovers, or with reasonable diligence should have discovered, the facts underlying the alleged fraud, ending any period of equitable tolling. A subsequent, voluntarily dismissed bankruptcy proceeding does not toll or extend this limitations period for the debtor under 11 U.S.C. § 108(a).
Facts:
- In late 2004 or early 2005, Crystal J. Roach decided to refinance her home mortgage to obtain cash.
- She worked with Ryan Samuel, a mortgage broker, who arranged a refinancing agreement between Roach and Option One Mortgage Corp.
- At the January 28, 2005 closing, Roach signed several documents, including an Adjustable Rate Note and a TILA Disclosure Statement, which clearly indicated her loan had a variable interest rate.
- Roach alleges that Samuel orally misrepresented that her payment schedule was fixed and would only increase twice, contrary to the signed loan documents.
- On January 17, 2007, Option One sent Roach a letter notifying her that the interest rate on her mortgage was increasing, resulting in a monthly payment higher than what she believed was fixed.
- In response, Roach sent a letter to Option One on February 26, 2007, stating her belief that the new payment amount was inconsistent with her understanding of the mortgage terms.
- After making at least two increased payments, Roach stopped making payments altogether prior to July 30, 2007.
Procedural Posture:
- After Roach defaulted on her loan, Option One initiated foreclosure proceedings.
- On September 4, 2007, Roach filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which stayed the foreclosure.
- During the bankruptcy proceedings, Roach defensively asserted that Option One had miscalculated her mortgage payments.
- On February 27, 2008, Roach's bankruptcy petition was dismissed on her own motion.
- On March 7, 2008, Roach sued Option One and others in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
- On June 6, 2008, the court dismissed her original complaint without prejudice and granted her leave to file an amended complaint.
- On July 9, 2008, Roach filed an amended complaint alleging only a TILA violation.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court is treating as a motion for summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does either equitable tolling or a voluntarily dismissed bankruptcy proceeding render a TILA claim timely when it was filed more than one year after the borrower received clear notice of facts contradicting the lender's alleged misrepresentations?
Opinions:
Majority - T.S. Ellis, III
No, neither equitable tolling nor a voluntarily dismissed bankruptcy proceeding renders the TILA claim timely. The court held that even assuming Roach could establish fraudulent concealment sufficient for equitable tolling, that tolling period ended in January 2007 when she received Option One's letter. This letter put her on clear notice of the facts underlying her claim—that her payments were variable and not fixed as allegedly represented. At that point, the one-year statute of limitations under TILA began to run, requiring her to file suit by January 2008. Furthermore, the tolling provision of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 108(a), does not apply because its benefit is for the bankruptcy estate and trustee, not for a debtor who voluntarily dismisses their own bankruptcy proceeding. When Roach voluntarily abated her bankruptcy, she relinquished any potential benefit under § 108(a).
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that equitable tolling is a narrow remedy that ceases once a plaintiff has sufficient facts to be put on inquiry notice of a potential claim, triggering a duty of due diligence. It significantly clarifies the application of 11 U.S.C. § 108(a), establishing that the statute's extension of time benefits the bankruptcy estate and its trustee, not a debtor who strategically files and then voluntarily dismisses a bankruptcy petition. The ruling prevents debtors from using bankruptcy as a tool to unilaterally extend non-bankruptcy statutes of limitations for their own personal claims after the bankruptcy has been terminated.
Unlock the full brief for Roach v. Option One Mortgage Corp.