On October 14, 2015, in
Saint-Fleur v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Southern District of Florida Judge William P. Dimitrouleas issued an
order denying the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in part in a Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2601,
et seq. lawsuit.
The facts are as follows: In December 2014, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
(“Chase”) sent the Plaintiff a letter informing Plaintiff
that there was an adjustment due on his loan in the amount of $184.78.
The letter was deficient as to the reasons for the adjustment and whether
it was a debit or a credit, a one-time adjustment or a monthly adjustment.
As such, Plaintiff sent Chase a Request for Information (“RFI”)
pursuant to Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36, inquiring about the
December 2014 letter. The RFI asked Chase to “explain with specificity
exactly how you discovered the error. Additionally, please detail what
steps you have taken to correct said error.”
Saint-Fleur v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 0:15-cv-61110-WPD at *2 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 14, 2015). Chase responded
to the RFI by stating “the adjustment of $184.78 was made due to
fees that were quoted in your loan modification.”
Id. Plaintiff was dissatisfied with the response because “Plaintiff
was even more confused because he entered into a modification nearly five
(5) years prior. Plaintiff still did not know if he was being credited
this amount or charged this amount.”
Id. at *3 (internal citations omitted). Plaintiff then sent a follow up correspondence
to Chase informing Chase that he was “not closer to understanding
the $184.78 correction than [he] was before [he] sent the RFI.”
Id. (internal citations omitted). Chase never responded to the follow up letter
and thus Plaintiff sued Chase for a violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2605(k).
Chase moved to dismiss the action claiming,
inter alia, that the response provided was sufficient and that Plaintiff’s
dissatisfaction with the response does not give rise to a RESPA violation.
The Court disagreed. The Court held that “rather than Plaintiff
merely being dissatisfied with Chase’s response to his query, Plaintiff
did not receive the information he requested. Thus, the Court, upon review
of the RFI, Chase’s response, Plaintiff’s follow-up, and Chase’s
subsequent failure to respond, finds that the Complaint sufficiently alleges
that Chase failed to meet its obligation to “provid[e] the borrower
with the requested information.”
See 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36(d)(1).”
Id. at *5-6.