United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendant's motion to
dismiss, [Doc. No. 9]. Plaintiff has responded to the motion,
to which Defendant has responded. The matter is fully
briefed. For the following reasons, the Court will grant
Petition alleges the following:
about September 27, 2010, a foreclosure sale was conducted on
purchased the property.
time, Plaintiff was unaware that for the years preceding the
foreclosure, Defendant had for all intents and purposes
actually owned the loan, and was using Wells Fargo as a
glorified servicer under its guidelines.
put into place multiple safeguards to ensure that although it
was not listed on the note and deed of trust that it would
have all say as to how the mortgage would be handled, and
would be the beneficiary if the property went into
extent, even though it was never mentioned in the note and
deed of trust, Defendant purchased the property at the
foreclosure sale, and did so with a credit bid, a luxury no
third-party bidder would have been given.
because of the arrangement made with Wells Fargo before
entering into the loan agreement with Plaintiff, was the true
owner of the loan at all times it was being serviced by Wells
this time, Defendant forced Wells Fargo to enter into a sham
modification and other agreements with Plaintiff, during
which it told Plaintiff not to make his payments, that he
would be modified, and to disregard the written communication
he received indicating his default.
of Wells Fargo, acting as agents for Defendant, told
Plaintiff repeatedly that he was eligible for loan
modification, and that he must be behind in his payments to
receive such modification.
relied on the representations of the agents of Defendant, and
was thereby harmed when Defendant ...