In Salt Lake City, Utah, the
Deseret News reports:
- A Pleasant View man is taking one of the biggest banks in the world to federal court over a failed loan modification that resulted in a foreclosure on his home. And he's doing it without an attorney.
- “I went to several attorneys and every attorney told me the same thing: ‘You are never going to go anywhere. Banks have bottomless pockets, and you are not going to win,’” recalled Michael Waters, who repairs computers by trade.
- In what is shaping up to be a "David vs. Goliath" legal fight, Waters appears to be putting up a decent battle. He has already won a restraining order preventing the foreclosure of his home while the case is in court. And U.S. District Judge Bruce Jenkins appears to be sympathetic to Waters’ plight and has granted him a trial.
- Waters’ legal troubles began last year after he lost his job and called Bank of America to see what he could do to keep up with his mortgage payments. The bank offered a forbearance that drastically reduced Waters’ mortgage payment and told Waters he was eligible for a trial loan modification. "I thought, 'This is like a blessing. This is wonderful,'” Waters said.
- But before Waters had the chance to make his first payment, Bank of America sent a letter canceling the forbearance. The bank told him it was because his payment was late, but the letter was sent before the payment was due. When Waters contacted the bank, he was told a different story. The bank said it could not offer a forbearance because they did not have the note to the loan.
- “Well I said, 'Who does own the note? Maybe we could work something out' and they said, 'We can't give you that information,'” Waters said. Bank of America told Waters his February mortgage payment was due immediately and he had seven days before the March payment was due. Waters said he did not have the money because Bank of America advised him to use his savings to pay off all debt to qualify for the forbearance. The bank foreclosed three months later.
- Instead of giving up, Waters started doing research online to see if he could find any options that may give him a fighting chance. "It probably took me 64 hours of legal research," he said. "I just went to the Internet and found copies of lawsuits that were filed, and I just typed in something similar."
- Waters stumbled across two Supreme Court rulings (Haines v. Kerer and Platsky v. CIA) that have aided him in court. “(The rulings) said that if somebody is in court pro se, which is me — no attorney — that their case can't be rejected or thrown out on technical grounds” and the judge has to help, explained Waters.(1)
For more, see Pleasant View man takes banking Goliath to court sans attorney.
For the transcript of the hearing granting the homeowner a trial in this case, see Waters v. Bank of America.
(1) For a couple of the many Federal court rulings mandating that trial judges cut pro se homeowners a considerable amount of slack when hearing their cases, see:
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), in which the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the rulings of two lower courts, the court stated:
- The only issue now before us is petitioner's contention that the District Court erred in dismissing his pro se complaint without allowing him to present evidence on his claims.
Whatever may be the limits on the scope of inquiry of courts into the internal administration of prisons, allegations such as those asserted by petitioner, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.' Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45—46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2d 774 (CA2 1944).
Accordingly, although we intimate no view whatever on the merits of petitioner's allegations, we conclude that he is entitled to an opportunity to offer proof. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Platsky v. Central Intelligence Agency, 953 F.2d 26 (2d Cir. 1991), in which a Federal Appeals Court ruled:
- Pro se plaintiffs are often unfamiliar with the formalities of pleading requirements. Recognizing this, the Supreme Court has instructed the district courts to construe pro se complaints liberally and to apply a more flexible standard in determining the sufficiency of a pro se complaint than they would in reviewing a pleading submitted by counsel. See e.g., Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10, 101 S.Ct. 173, 175-76, 66 L.Ed.2d 163 (1980) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595-96, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam); see also Elliott v. Bronson, 872 F.2d 20, 21 (2d Cir.1989) (per curiam). In order to justify the dismissal of a pro se complaint, it must be " 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.' " Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. at 521, 92 S.Ct. at 594 (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)).
In light of these principles, we think that the district court should not have dismissed Platsky's complaints without affording him leave to replead.
***
- The district court also dismissed the complaints for their failure to plead facts that were sufficiently specific. The district judge held that Platsky failed to allege the concrete and particularized injury required to establish standing and to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
***
- We think that Platsky should have a chance to state his claim more clearly. It is not "'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim[s],' " Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. at 521, 92 S.Ct. at 595, and therefore we hold that the better course would have been for the district court, in dismissing Platsky's pro se complaints, to grant him leave to file amended pleadings. See Elliott v. Bronson, 872 F.2d at 22. We have instructed Platsky that his complaint must set out, with particularity and specificity, the actual harms he suffered as a result of the defendants' clearly defined acts.
Accordingly, we vacate the judgment and order below, and remand the case to the district court with instructions to allow the plaintiff to replead.
See also Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976), which supports the mandate that trial judges cut pro se homeowners slack when bringing their cases:
- The handwritten pro se document is to be liberally construed. As the Court unanimously held in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), a pro se complaint, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears "`beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Id., at 520-521, quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45 -46 (1957). [429 U.S. 97, 107]
