Landon Lane Lawless v. Roundpoint Mortgage Servicing Corporation and Freedom Mortgage Corporation

Tulsa, Oklahoma consumer credit law lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on a Fair Credit Reporting Act violation theory.





Plaintiff's petition alleges the following: on November 7, 2016, plaintiff executed and delivered a note and mortgage to State Farm Bank FSB. The bank used Roundpoint to service the note "by properly accounting for all payments to be paid by” plaintiff. On or about August 18, 2020, Roundpoint "merged” with Freedom, at which point Roundpoint became a "wholly owned subsidiary of Freedom.”



"On or about June 1, 2022, . . . Freedom claims it 'acquired' the [n]ote and [m]ortgage from” Roundpoint. However, plaintiff's "payments were effectuated by automatic drafts of his personal bank account initiated by” Roundpoint through August 30, 2022. Id. On October 3, 2022, Freedom sent plaintiff a letter "incorrectly asserting the [n]ote was in arrears for three consecutive months in the aggregate sum of $3,560.33.” "[K]nowing that Freedom was incorrect in its account,” plaintiff paid $3,560.33 to Freedom on October 18, 2022, which "resulted in a de facto prepayment for Freedom” in that amount. Id. Since then, plaintiff has "futilely made demands upon Freedom to either return that sum or credit that amount as a principal reduction.”



Freedom or Roundpoint "compounded its mistake” by reporting to credit agencies that plaintiff "was in default of his obligation . . . which, in turn, substantially damaged his credit score.” Id. "Freedom has denied [plaintiff's] demand to rectify that situation.”



Now plaintiff asserts three claims against defendants: 1) conversion, 2) breach of contract, and 3) violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,, U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., and seeks actual damages, exemplary damages, and statutory damages as applicable.

Defendants' motion for partial dismissal was granted. Plaintiff's first claim for conversion and third claim for violation of the FCRA were dismissed without prejudice.



The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law breach of contract claim. The Clerk of Court was directed to remand this case to Tulsa County District Court.