Branch v. Bank of Am., N.A.

4 Citing cases

  1. Mitchell v. U.S. Bank

    Civil Action No. PX-17-1805 (D. Md. Sep. 28, 2018)   Cited 2 times

    This alone would cause a reasonable person to inquire about the status of her loan. Storey v. Columbia Home Loans, LLC, No. RDB-11-03214, 2012 WL 1957978, at *7 (D. Md. May 23, 2012) (finding that the recording of a deed would "cause a reasonable person to inquire about potential problems regarding a loan and its terms"); Branch v. Bank of Am., N.A, No. PWG-11-3712, 2013 WL 6815903, at *3 (D. Md. Dec. 19, 2013) (interpreting Storey narrowly to find that "even in the context of mortgage irregularities, a party is not necessarily on notice of fraud until a fraudulent deed actually has been recorded.") (emphasis added). Thus, Mitchell should have filed her claims within three years after such recordation.

  2. Yi v. First Tenn. Bank

    Civil Action No. 8:18-cv-02877-PX (D. Md. May. 8, 2019)

    Plaintiffs own forged signatures on the Deed of Trust would have been self-evident had Plaintiffs performed such minimal review. See Storey v. Columbia Home Loans, LLC, No. RDB-11- 03214, 2012 WL 1957978, at *7 (D. Md. May 23, 2012) (finding that the recording of a deed would "cause a reasonable person to inquire about potential problems regarding a loan and its terms"); Branch v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. PWG-11-3712, 2013 WL 6815903, at *3 (D. Md. Dec. 19, 2013) (interpreting Storey narrowly to find that "even in the context of mortgage irregularities, a party is not necessarily on notice of fraud until a fraudulent deed actually has been recorded") (emphasis added). Accordingly, accepting the Complaint facts as true and most favorably to Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs reasonably could have learned about the forged Deed of Trust as of July 21, 2005.

  3. Hasan v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC

    Civil No. PJM 16-3598 (D. Md. Jul. 26, 2017)

    Similarly limitations as to common law fraud under Maryland law also ran after three years. Branch v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. CIV. PWG-11-3712, 2013 WL 6815903, at *2 (D. Md. Dec. 19, 2013) (quoting United States v. Allen-Williams, No. JFM-11-1001, 2011 WL 4985817, at *4 (D. Md. Oct. 19, 2011)). Since Hasan's suit was filed in 2016, it came well beyond the limitations period for her TILA and common law fraud claims.

  4. Akakpo v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.

    Civil Action No. PX 16-1082 (D. Md. Mar. 20, 2017)   Cited 4 times

    Plaintiffs' fraud, negligence, MCDCA, MCPA and RESPA claims are governed by a three-year statute of limitations. See Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101; Branch v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. PWG-11-3712, 2013 WL 6815903, at *2 (D. Md. Dec. 19, 2013) ("Under Maryland law, the statute of limitations for . . . fraud claims is three years unless otherwise specified." (internal citations omitted)); F.D.I.C. v. Arthur, No. RDB-14-604, 2015 WL 898065, at *2 (D. Md. Mar. 2, 2015) ("[T]ort actions are subject to a three year statute of limitations."); Fontell v. Hassett, 870 F. Supp. 2d 395, 415 (D. Md. 2012) ("The statute of limitations under both the MCDCA and the MCPA is three years."); 12 U.S.C. § 2614 (three-year statute of limitations for RESPA claims brought under 12 U.S.C. § 2605).