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.

Haun v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, D. Oregon

May 31, 2017

JEFFREY HAUN, Plaintiff,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          Michael McShane United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Jeffrey Haun, proceeding pro se, moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 2. The Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), must screen applications to proceed IFP and dismiss any case that is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The court previously dismissed Haun's complaint for failure to state claim. Haun's amended complaint suffers the same defects as the original complaint. Haun's original complaint alleged, in full:

Plaintiff's Denial of Due Process and constitutional rights per improper mortgage company procedures, both servicing and otherwise, and including, but not limited to, improper noticing for mortgage note and deed activities (i.e., divergent paths for both). This action cites: Fraud, Negligence, and Misrepresentation attributed to Defendants' multiple violations of ignoring proper loan procedures.

         Compl., 5.

         In my earlier order dismissing Haun's complaint, I noted:

The Court suspects Haun bases his claim on the fact that the note and deed of trust were separated due to assignments common when MERS was listed as the beneficiary on a deed of trust. The Oregon Supreme Court discussed this practice in Brandrup v. ReconTrust, 353 Or. 668, 672 (2013) and Niday v. GMAC Mortg., LLC, 353 Or. 648, 660 (2013). Haun's sparse allegations at this point fail to state a claim. Haun's complaint also fails to meet the heightened pleading standards required for a fraud claim. Haun fails to lay out any specific factual allegations supporting his claim that the defendants wronged him. Additionally, the Court is unable to determine if Haun's property was ever foreclosed on. If Haun's claim is based on a completed foreclosure, he will have to provide specific factual allegations of some “fundamental flaw in the foreclosure proceedings” to support his claim. Woods v. U.S. Bank N.A., 831 F.3d 1159, 1166 (9th Cir. 2016). Technical defects, such as listing the wrong beneficiary on the notice of sale, are not significant enough to overturn the foreclosure. Id. It is unclear whether Haun alleges fundamental flaws or technical defects or if there even was a foreclosure sale at all.
Brandrup Niday

         CONCLUSION

Haun must support his complaint with specific factual allegations demonstrating how the individual defendants harmed him. Currently, Haun's complaint merely sets out boilerplate language appearing to challenge MERS's involvement in the loan. Additionally, Haun fails to meet the heightened pleading standards for a fraud claim. Haun is granted leave to file an amended complaint at which point the Court will screen the amended complaint as part of the IFP screening process.

         April 12, 2017 Order, 2-3; ECF No. 4.

         Haun's Amended Complaint fails to contain any specific factual allegations. Haun continues to argue that a splitting of the note and deed into “divergent paths” deprived him of his “Due Process and constitutional rights.” I recently rejected another plaintiff's argument based on a theory around the splitting of the note. See Campbell v. Carrington Mortg. Serv. LLC, 2017 WL 114082 at *2 (D. Or. Jan. 11, 2017 Opinion). In Campbell, I explained:

Plaintiff bases her claims for Quiet Title on the premise that the Note has been split from the Deed of Trust, and is therefore unenforceable. Compl. ¶ 106. Because under Oregon law a Deed of Trust follows the Note and a deed of trust is assigned by operation of law whenever a note holder transfers its interest in a note to another party, the Plaintiff's premise is incorrect. The Note has not been split from the Deed of Trust. Brandrup v. Recon Trust Co., N.A.,353 Or. 668 (2013). ...

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.