Riddle v. Bank of America Corp. (BAC) | PA Dist. Court - Respa, Private mortgage insurance providers in exchange for a kickback claims

"Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants dressed up an illegal scheme to appear as a legitimate transaction is sufficient to deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the issue of equitable tolling."

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

THOMAS J. RIDDLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM Schiller, J. April 11, 2013 Thomas Riddle, Marilyn Fischer, and Jeffrey Stanton filed a class action lawsuit against Bank of America Corporation (“BAC”), Bank of America, N.A. (“BOA”), Bank of America Reinsurance Corporation (“BOARC”) (collectively, “BOA Defendants”), United Guaranty Residential Insurance Company (“United”), Triad Guaranty Insurance Corporation (“Triad”), Republic Mortgage Insurance Company (“Republic”), Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation (“MGIC”), Radian Guaranty, Inc. (“Radian”), and Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corporation (“Genworth”). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants were all participants in a scheme that violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”). Specifically, BOA referred borrowers to private mortgage insurance providers in exchange for a kickback of the private mortgage insurance payment to BOA. In reality, however, BOA did not assume any real risk in exchange for the payments, thus rendering illusory the reinsurance coverage it assumed. Presently before the Court are the motions to dismiss of BOA Defendants, United, Radian, and Genworth.1 They argue that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by RESPA’s statute of limitations. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies the motions.

"