United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND GRANTING DEFENDANT iSERVE'S MOTION FOR
Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge
NATURE OF THE ACTION
Pittman (“Pittman”) brings multiple claims under
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). This case
hinges on the validity of a trial mortgage modification plan,
which was offered, but not signed as required under Michigan
law. For that reason, Pittman's mortgage was not
permanently modified and he cannot enforce the terms of the
Trial Modification Plan.
sues Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Trans Union, LLC,
Equifax Information Services, LLC, Servis One, Inc.
(“BSI”), and iServe Servicing, Inc
(“iServe”). He has two separate claims against
all Defendants for: (1) Negligent Violation of FCRA, and; (2)
Willful Violation of FCRA. Pittman also filed a breach of
contract claim against BSI.
and iServe filed cross motions for Summary Judgment. Pittman
seeks Summary Judgment on Counts I - Negligent Violation of
FCRA by BSI, II - Willful Violation of FCRA by BSI, III -
Negligent Violation of FCRA by iServe, IV - Willful Violation
of FCRA by iServe, and XI - Breach of Contract by BSI.
Motion is DENIED.
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts III - Negligent
Violation of FCRA and IV - Willful Violation of FCRA .
Motion is GRANTED; Iserve is DISMISSED.
granted Pittman a Trial Modification Plan (“TMP”)
on his mortgage in December 2011 after he failed to make two
mortgage payments in August and September 2011. The TMP
required Pittman to make three reduced mortgage payments of
$1, 357.80 in a “timely manner” and stated,
“After all trial period payments are timely made and
you have submitted all the required documents, your mortgage
will be permanently modified.” The TMP also stated,
“Your credit score may be adversely affected by
accepting a trial period plan.” Pittman timely made the
three trial payments and continued to make payments for $1,
357.80 each month to iServe. However, the TMP was never
signed by Pittman or iServe, nor was it ever made permanent
in writing by iServe.
to the TMP, Pittman's mortgage was held by Citicorp Trust
Bank when he obtained the loan in 2008. Under the original
mortgage agreement, Pittman was required to make monthly
payments of $1980.42 and Citicorp agreed to deposit a portion
of the payments into an escrow account designated for
property taxes. The loan was transferred twice; first to
iServe in July 2010 and then to BSI in June 2012.
continued to make reduced payments on his mortgage after the
transfer from iServe to BSI. On April 25, 2013, iServe's
senior counsel advised Pittman through email that the loan
modification was permanent as far as he was aware
(“According to iServe's understanding from HAMP and
BSI, Mr. Pittman's loan modification has been made
permanent…”). When Pittman obtained his credit
reports in June 2014, he learned BSI and iServe had reported
his mortgage payments as past due. This negatively impacted
his credit history. Pittman sent letters to credit reporting
agencies (“CRAs), Experian Information Solutions, Inc.,
Equifax Information Services, and Trans Union on June 11,
2014 and August 20, 2014, disputing the information furnished
by BSI and iServe. In October 2014, Pittman also learned BSI
had not made property tax payments from his escrow account.
suit followed. Pittman argues he is entitled to summary
judgment because iServe and BSI were bound under the TMP to
conduct a reasonable investigation and rectify erroneous
says it is entitled to summary judgment on the claims against
it, because Pittman failed to produce a signed permanent loan
modification and thus the information it reported was