Thomas v. Residential Funding Company Settlement

WRRSV is pleased to announce that they have settled the claims of 71 putative class members against only Defendant Residential Funding Company (“RFC”) with respect to 40 of the loans at issue in Thomas v. U.S. Bank, N.A., N.D., et al., Case No. 11-6013-CV-SJ-SOW. The class action settlement resolves the claims of 71 class members against RFC for violations of Missouri’s Second Mortgage Loans Act for those loans that were originated by First Plus Bank and that were also purchased by or serviced by or master serviced by RFC.

 

The settlement of the claims of the 71 putative class members against RFC as to those 40 loans inThomas v. U.S. Bank, N.A., N.D., et al. was effectuated by the filing of a separate action against RFC in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri named Shokere-Mayo vs. Residential Funding Company., et al., Case No. 1116-CV30478. The claims were settled in that action.

 

The 71 settling class members as to the 40 loans from the Thomas v. U.S. Bank, N.A., N.D. et al. action will receive a payment ranging from an estimated $5,613.69 to $89,522.61 ($32,834.67 on average). Class Members can see what we currently estimate the amount of their settlement payment to be by accessing the Proposed Distribution Schedule on the Shokere v. RFC Settlement webpage. To access the Proposed Distribution Schedule for your settlement benefit through the Shokere v. RFC Settlement webpage, click here.

 

It should be noted that the claims of the 71 putative class members against only RFC in Thomas v. U.S. Bank, N.A., N.D. et al. have been settled. The claims against all other Defendants, if any, by the 71 putative class members and the claims of all other putative class members against all other Defendants remain for resolution.

 

Update: Thomas v U.S. Bank, N.A., N.D. et al.  

On April 29, 2014, Senior United States District Judge Scott O. Wright entered an Order granting various defendants’ motions to dismiss based on statute of limitations grounds and dismissed the entire lawsuit with prejudice.

 

The lawsuit was filed originally in 2004 in the Circuit Court of Plate County, Missouri.  The lawsuit followed the dismissal of the Adkison class action, an earlier-lawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri that involved the same second mortgage loans.  Under controlling Missouri law, the statute of limitations applicable to the claims asserted in the lawsuit is six-years.

 

In 2011, the Defendants were able to remove the lawsuit to federal court based on the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.  In 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, a federal appellate court, ruled in another federal lawsuit that the six-year statute of limitations did not apply to civil actions such as those for violations of Missouri’s Second Mortgage Loans Act.  The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that such actions instead are subject to a three-year statute of limitations.  In dismissing the lawsuit, Judge Wright followed the decision by the  Eighth Circuit “as controlling” and held that the three-year statute applied.

 

Importantly, this ruling by the Eighth Circuit did not change existing Missouri law, which continues to provide that the six-year statute of limitations applies to civil actions under the Missouri Second Mortgage Loans Act.

 

There is thus a conflict in Missouri as to whether the six- or three-year statute of limitations applies to civil actions such as those for violations of the Missouri Second Mortgage Loans Act. In Missouri state court, a six year statute of limitations is applied, but a three year statute of limitations is being applied by the federal courts if the case is removed to federal court.  We believe that a federal court cannot apply a different statute of limitations than a Missouri state court would apply to the same action.

 

We disagree with the court’s ruling and plan to appeal.  The appellate process could take one to two years.

 

Click here to find a copy of the April 29th, 2014 Order .

Back to Class Action Settlements