United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
Douglas L. Rayes United States District Judge.
Before
the Court is Bank of America, N.A.'s (“BOA”)
motion to dismiss (Docs. 10, 40)[1], U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.'s
and LSF9 Master Participation Trust by Caliber Home Loans,
Inc.'s, (referred to collectively as “Caliber
Defendants”) motion to dismiss (Docs. 16, 33, 42), and
First American Financial Corporation's (“First
American”) motion to dismiss (Docs. 21, 36, 37), all of
which are fully briefed. For the following reasons, the three
motions are granted.
I.
Background
On May
31, 2006, Carl Greiner[2] obtained a loan for $216, 000 secured by a
Deed of Trust. (Doc. 10-1 at 4-17.) The Deed of Trust was
recorded on July 10, 2006 with the legal description omitted.
(Id.) On June 24, 2010, Mr. Greiner obtained a
bankruptcy discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727. (Doc. 10-2
at 8.) On January 10, 2012, First American Title Insurance
Company (“FA”) filed an Affidavit of
Scrivener's Error, noting that the legal description on
the Deed of Trust securing Mr. Greiner's $216, 000 loan
had been inadvertently omitted and providing the legal
description as follows:
LOT 112, OF PALM LANE VILLAGE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF
RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, IN BOOK 142 OF MAPS, PAGE 22.[3]
(Doc. 10-1 at 26-27.) In early 2012, Mr. Greiner
defaulted on his loan, and a notice of trustee sale on Lot
112 was recorded on May 8, 2012. (Id. at 37.) On
January 16, 2013, Reconstruct Company, N.A., the successor
trustee, filed a notice of cancellation of trustee sale.
(Id. at 40.)
In 2013
and 2014, Mr. Greiner quitclaimed his interest in Lot 112 to
Pine Valley Land Trust (“Pine Valley”), which
soon quitclaimed its interest to Ameron National Trust
(“Ameron National”), whose sole interest holder
and Trustee is Plaintiff. (Id. at 42; Doc. 10-2 at
2; Doc. 21 at 6.) On October 22, 2014, Ameron National filed
a request for a temporary restraining order in Maricopa
County Superior Court to halt a trustee sale on Lot 112
scheduled for October 24, 2014 and find the Deed of Trust
invalid. (Doc. 21-1 at 2.) The trial court determined that
the Deed of Trust was valid and the scrivener's error
could not have caused any harm to Ameron or its privies,
which the Court of Appeals affirmed.[4] (Id. at 53-64.) The
Supreme Court of Arizona denied the Petition for Review and
refused to accept any more pleadings or documents in the
matter. (Id. at 85-88.)
The
Caliber Defendants obtained the Deed of Trust by assignment
on August 10, 2016. (Doc. 16-1.) On November 8, 2018,
Christina Harper, the Trustee under the Deed of Trust,
recorded a notice of trustee sale on Lot 112. (Doc. 10-2 at
15-16.) On February 6, 2019, Ameron National quitclaimed its
interest to Plaintiff. (Doc. 1-3 at 81.) Plaintiff commenced
this action two days later by filing a complaint with claims
for fraud, slander of title, unjust enrichment, quiet title,
and declaratory judgment in the Maricopa County Superior
Court. (Doc. 1-3.) Lot 112 was sold at public auction on
February 14, 2019 to LSF9 Master Participation Trust
(“LSF9”).
The
action was removed to this Court on May 16, 2019. (Doc. 1.)
On May 23, 2019, BOA filed its motion to dismiss. (Doc. 10.)
The same day, Caliber Defendants filed their motion to
dismiss on behalf of themselves and Trustee Christina Harper.
(Doc. 16.) On May 28, 2019, First American filed its motion
to dismiss. (Doc. 21.) The motions are now ripe.
II.
Legal Standard
To
survive dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must
contain factual allegations sufficient to “raise a
right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The
task when ruling on a motion to dismiss “is to evaluate
whether the claims alleged [plausibly] can be asserted as a
matter of law.” See Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d
1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). When analyzing the
sufficiency of a complaint, the well-pled factual allegations
are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff. Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063,
1067 (9th Cir. 2009). However, legal conclusions couched as
factual allegations are not entitled to the assumption of
truth, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 680, and therefore are
insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim, In re Cutera Sec. Litig., 610 F.3d
1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2008).
III.
Discussion
A.
Fraud
In his
complaint, Plaintiff asserts a claim for fraudulent
concealment against “Defendants, ” explaining
that the encumbrances on Lot 112 were fraudulently concealed
from him at the time that he received the quit claim deed.
(Doc. 1-3 at 11-12.) In order to plead a fraudulent
concealment claim, Plaintiff must allege facts supporting
“(1) the concealment of a material existing fact that
in equity and good conscience should be disclosed; (2)
knowledge on the part of the party against whom the claim is
asserted that such a fact is being concealed; (3) ignorance
of the fact on the part of the one from whom the fact is
concealed; ...