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.

Perkins v. South Carolina Community Bank

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division

January 12, 2017

Matthew Perkins, PLAINTIFF
v.
South Carolina Community Bank, DEFENDANT

          ORDER

          Terry L. Wooten Chief United States District Judge

         This matter comes before the Court for consideration of South Carolina Community Bank's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Court grants the motion to dismiss as to the federal law claim and declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims and dismisses those claims without prejudice.

         I. Factual and Procedural History [1]

         In 2006, Matthew Perkins and others formed JTK Investment, LLC, for the purpose of creating a youth center in Lake City, South Carolina. Am. Compl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 65. In September 2006, JTK executed a note and mortgage in the Bank's favor to finance the purchase of real property for the youth center. Id. ¶¶ 10-11. Perkins personally guaranteed the note.[2] However, community support and investment backers for the youth center fell through, and JTK defaulted on the loan. Id. ¶¶ 12-13. In February 2011, JTK and the Bank agreed to a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure and Estoppel Affidavit, which provided broadly that, in order to avoid foreclosure proceedings, JTK would deed the property to the Bank in full satisfaction of the loan, including releasing Perkins from personal liability. See Id. ¶¶ 14-16.[3]

         Perkins later attempted to obtain a loan to finance the construction of his own home, but he was denied a loan from his credit union based on inaccuracies on his credit report arising out of the JTK loan. Id. ¶ 17. He eventually obtained a loan from another institution at a higher interest rate. Id. ¶ 19.

         Perkins then contacted the Bank to correct his credit report, which it did. Id. ¶ 20. However, the Bank later returned the debt to his credit report, which he discovered when he was denied a car loan. Id. ¶ 21. He called the Bank numerous times to find out what needed to be done to fix his credit report, but he never received an answer. Id. ¶ 22.

         Perkins has been denied credit several times since entering into the deed in lieu and notifying the Bank of the errors on his credit report, and his mortgage company recently tripled his escrow payments from $200 to $600 as a result of his inaccurate credit report. Id. ¶¶ 23-24.

         In August 2014, Perkins brought this suit against the Bank, asserting a federal claim for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq.; and South Carolina state law claims for breach of contract, breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act, and unfair trade practices.[4] ECF No. 65. The Bank filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), ECF No. 67, Perkins filed a response in opposition, ECF No. 70, and the Bank filed a reply, ECF No. 71.

         This matter is now ripe for decision.

         II. Standard of Review

         A Rule 12(b)(6) motion should be granted “if, after accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiffs complaint as true and drawing all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in the plaintiffs favor, it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief.” Edwards, 178 F.3d at 244. “[T]he facts alleged ‘must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level' and must provide ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Robinson v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 551 F.3d 218, 222 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007)).

         III. Discussion

         A. ...


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.