United States District Court, E.D. Michigan
ORDER: (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT BSI'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [DOC. 100]; (2) DEEMING MOOT BSI'S
MOTION IN LIMINE [DOC. 99]; AND (3) DISMISSING THE
Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Pittman (“Pittman”) filed this case against
several parties, including Servis One, Inc. d/b/a BSI
Financial Services (“BSI”) and iServe Servicing,
Inc. (“iServe”). The case relates to (1)
Pittman's mortgage loan, which iServe serviced until June
2012 when it transferred servicing obligations to BSI; (2) a
trial modification plan (“TMP”) from January 2012
to March 2012; and (3) a permanent loan modification, which
was executed in September 2016, but made retroactive to March
2012. BSI is the sole remaining defendant.
alleges three claims against BSI: (1) negligent violation of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C.
§ 1681, et seq.; (2) willful violation of the
FCRA; and (3) breach of contract. Pittman says BSI violated
the FCRA by incorrectly reporting to credit reporting
agencies (“CRAs”) that his account was past due
between September 2012 and July 2014; he says BSI breached
the mortgage agreement by failing to pay property taxes on
his property in 2013 and 2014.
and iServe previously filed cross motions for summary
judgment. iServe moved for summary judgment on Pittman's
two FCRA claims against it; Pittman moved for summary
judgment on his two claims against iServe as well as on all
three claims against BSI.
order dated November 30, 2016, the Court (1) denied
Pittman's entire motion; (2) granted iServe's motion
and dismissed it from the case; and (3) found, in relevant
a) Under the original mortgage agreement, Pittman was
required to make monthly payments of $1980.42;
b) After Pittman failed to make mortgage payments in August
and September 2011, iServe granted him a TMP on his mortgage,
temporarily reducing his monthly payment to $1, 357.80 for
January, February and March 2012;
c) The TMP explicitly states that it is not permanent and
that Pittman's credit may be adversely affected by
accepting its terms;
d) 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 made permanent in writing by
e) After the loan was assigned to BSI, Pittman continued to
make the trial period payments of $1, 357.80;
f) Because the TMP was temporary, and because Pittman was on
notice that his credit score could be adversely affected by
accepting the TMP, Pittman cannot show iServe or BSI made an
error in reporting his loan payments as overdue.
[Doc. 96, PgID 2373-74, 2377, 2380 (minor alterations
addition to stating that Pittman's credit score may be
adversely affected by accepting its terms, the TMP also
stated that: (1) “Your existing loan and loan
requirements remain in effect and unchanged during the trial
period”; (2) “acceptance and posting of your new
payment during the trial period . . . shall not constitute a
cure of your default under your loan unless such payments are
sufficient to completely cure your entire default under your
loan”; and (3) “Once you make all of ...