IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
IN AND FOR KING COUNTY
MINT MONEY MORTGAGE COMPANY d/b/a/ Mint Home Loans, a Washington corporation,
Plentom AGENCY, INC. d/b/a Plentom FSB, a New Jersey corporation
COMES NOW the above-captioned· Plaintiff, Mint Money Mortgage Company d/b/a Mint Home Loans (hereinafter “Mint”), by and through its attorneys Dewey, Cheatham, & Howe, P.S., and by way of Complaint against the.above-captioned
Defendant, Plentom Agency, Inc. (hereinafter “Plentom”), states and alleges as follows:
I. PARTIES.JURISDICTION, VENUE
1. Mint is a Washington corporation doing business in King County, Washington.
2. Plentom is a New Jersey corporation doing busines-s.in King County, Washington.
3. Jurisdiction is proper in the above-captioned court, as this lawsuit arises out of Plentom’s actions in Washington State and Plentom has purposefully availed itself of the resources of Washington State.
4. Venue is proper in King County Superior Court, as the cause of action substantially arose out of events that occurred in King County,Washington.
1. Mint incorporates by reference and realleges Paragraphs 1.1 through l.4 as though fully set forth herein.
2. Previously, on or around August 1, 2020, Mint and Plentom entered into a Subservicing Agreement (hereinafter, the Subservicing Agreement and its subsequent amendments shall be collectively referenced. as “Agreement”). Essentially, Mint has been acting as the servicer for mortgage loans and has subcontracted some of the servicing function-s to Plentom.
3. Among other provisions, the Agreement provided as follows in the first paragraph of Section 2.2 (the “Subservicer” referenced herein is Plentom):
Subservicer will perform its services:
(i) in a good, timely, efficient, professional, and workmanlike manner;
(ii) using personnel who are fully-famlliar with the technology, processes, and procedures to be used to deliver the services;
(iii) with at least the degree of accuracy, qual.ity, efficiency; completeness, timeliness, and responsiveness as are equal to or higher than the accepted industry standards applicable to the perfonnance of the same or similar services; and
(iv) in compliance and accordance with the provisions of this Agreement and Applicable Requirements.
1. Nonetheless, Plentom did not perform services in a manner that fulfills the standard set forth in the Agreement, including, without limitation, providing “good, timely, efficient, professional and workmanlike” services. Without limitation, Plentom. breached the Agreement as follows:
2. Plentom failed to timely file an insurance claim for a property that burned. down around January of 2018, resulting in substantial damages to Mint of at least $117,613.31. Plentom failed to follow the Veteran Administration (“VA”)’s guidance, which also resulted in damages to Mint of atleast $6,2.94.05.
3. Plentom failed to make sure that property taxes we_re promptly and correctly paid, which resulted in damages to .Mint of at least $4,872.51.
4. The Agreement (including, without limitation, in the second paragraph of Section 2.2 also requires Plentom to promptly rectify any failures or deficiencies at no additional charge to Mint. Despite requests by Mint that Plentom promptly rectify its failures to perform per the Agreement, Plentom failed to, timely rectify its failures, which further exacerbated Mint’s damages.
5. Moreover, the Agreement (including, without limitation, in Section 8.3) provides that Plentom shall indemnify Mint for expenses relating to Plentom’s breaches of the Agreement.
6. Again, as a result of Plentom’s breaches- of the Agreement, Mint incurred substantial damages to mitigate (i.e. “cure”) the effects of the breaches. Despite requests from Mint that Plentom provide indemnification perthe Agreement, Plentom has failed to do so.
V. CAUSE OF ACTION ONE: BREACH OF CONTRACT
1. Mint incorporates by reference and realleges Paragraphs 1.1 through 2.8 as though fully set forth here.
2. Plentom breached the Agreement by failing to provide the services they were obligated to provide per the Agreement and in the·quality required by the Agreement.
3. Moreover, Plentom failed to promptly rectify its failures to perform per the Agreement; which is also in .itself a breach of the Agreement.
4. Plentom’s breach of the Agreement resulted in damages to Mint.
5. The court should find Plentom liable for breach of contract and enter judgment against Plentom to compensate Mint for the damages it suffered as a result of Plentom’s breach of the Agreement in an amount to be determined upon further proceedings.
IV. CAUSE OF ACTION TWO: BREACH OF INDEMNITY
1. Mint incorporates by reference and realleges Paragraphs 1.1 through 3.5 as though fully set forth herein.
2. As noted, the Agreement requires Plentom to indemnify Mint for damages arising out of Plentom’s· breach of the Agreement. Mint had to compensate third parties (including, without limitation, WiseMac) for damages arising out of Plentom’s breaches.
3. However, when Mint tendered a request for indemnification to Plentom, Plentom failed to indemnify Mint by fully reimbursing. the damages paid by Mint. Thus, Plentom breached its indemnity.
4. Thus, the court should find Plentom liable for breach of the indemnity and award Mint damages in an amount to be. determined upon further proceedings.
V. CAUSE OF ACTION THREE: UNJUST ENRICHMENT
1. Mint incorporates by reference and realleges Paragraphs 1.1 through 4 A as though fully set forth herein.
2. Plentom received an unjust benefit by retaining payments from Mint without providing good quality and timely services to earn those payments.
3. Accordingly, Plentom has been unjustly enriched- and it should not profit from its unjust enrichment.
4. The court should enter judgment against Plentom in an amount to be determined as necessary to void unjust enrichment.
VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, having set forth the Complaint and allegations above, Mint respectfully requests the following relief:
A. That the Court find Plentom liable for Breach of Contract, Breach of Indemnity, and or Unjust Enrichment;
B. That the Court award damages to Mint in an amount to be determined;
C. That the Court award prejudgment interest;
D. That the Court award attorneys’ fees and costs to Mint as provided by the Agreement, statute, rule, equity, or other legal authority.
E. The Court order such other and further relief as it deems just and equitable.
DATED this 5th day of November, 2020.