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.

Pittman v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan

May 19, 2017

HOWARD PITTMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants.

          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 CASE

          Victoria A. Roberts United States District Judge.

         I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

         Howard 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.

         Pittman 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.

         Pittman 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.

         In an 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 part, that:

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 iServe;
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 throughout)].

         In 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 ...


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.