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.

Ledin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

United States District Court, D. Kansas

February 28, 2014

JONATHAN LEDIN, Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MONTI L. BELOT, District Judge.

This case comes before the court on defendant's motion to dismiss. (Doc. 7). The motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for decision.[1] (Docs. 8, 10). Defendant's motion is granted for the reasons herein.

I. Facts and Procedural History

Plaintiff's father, Charles Ledin, obtained a mortgage for property in Hutchinson, Kansas, from defendant Wells Fargo Bank. In 2008, defendant issued a 1099-C, "Cancellation of Debt, " to Charles Ledin in the amount of $23, 245.01. Plaintiff alleges that the 1099-C released the mortgage on the property and defendant violated the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act by attempting to enforce the mortgage.

On June 15, 2009, plaintiff filed an action in the District Court of Reno County, Kansas, to quiet title. Plaintiff sought the release of defendant's lien and a declaration that plaintiff was not obligated to pay the outstanding mortgage. On August 13, 2010, the court entered a judgment in favor of defendant and held that the mortgage was a valid and enforceable lien against the property.

Plaintiff appealed the judgment. During the appeal, plaintiff and defendant entered into a settlement agreement. Plaintiff agreed to list the property for sale within sixty days of the agreement, pay defendant $13, 000 from the sale proceeds, dismiss the appeal and release all claims against defendant. Plaintiff, however, failed to comply with the terms of the agreement. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and confirm the settlement agreement. The Kansas Court of Appeals entered an order granting defendant's motion and dismissed the appeal. Plaintiff filed a petition for review with the Kansas Supreme Court and it was denied.

On May 15, 2012, plaintiff filed another action in Reno County. Plaintiff alleged that the settlement agreement was unconstitutional and that defendant illegally attempted to foreclose on the property by forcing him to list the property for sale. Plaintiff sought money damages, a release from the mortgage and an injunction to prevent the sale of the property. In July 2012, plaintiff agreed to a dismissal of his claims, with prejudice. On September 19, 2012, plaintiff was sanctioned by the district court for his filings in the 2009 case.

On January 3, 2014, plaintiff filed this action. Plaintiff alleges that defendant has violated the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act by attempting to enforce the mortgage and by issuing a fraudulent 1099-C. Plaintiff seeks an order invalidating the mortgage and a money judgment in the amount of $55 billion.

Defendant moves for dismissal on the basis of res judicata, settlement and waiver.

II. Motion to Dismiss Standards: FRCP 12(b) (6)

The standards this court must utilize upon a motion to dismiss are well known. To withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain enough allegations of fact to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Robbins v. Oklahoma , 519 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2008) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007)). All well-pleaded facts and the reasonable inferences derived from those facts are viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff. Archuleta v. Wagner , 523 F.3d 1278, 1283 (10th Cir. 2008). Conclusory allegations, however, have no bearing upon this court's consideration. Shero v. City of Grove, Okla. , 510 F.3d 1196, 1200 (10th Cir. 2007). In the end, the issue is not whether plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but whether he is entitled to offer evidence to support his claims. Beedle v. Wilson , 422 F.3d 1059, 1063 (10th Cir. 2005).

III. Analysis

A. Res Judicata

Whether a prior judgment bars relitigation of a claim or issue is addressed by the doctrine of res judicata. See Jackson Trak Group, Inc. v. Mid States Port Authority , 242 Kan. 683, 690, 751 P.2d 122 (1988). In Kansas, the doctrine encompasses both ...


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.