Balwinder Singh Whala; Jatinder Kaur Whala v. PNC BANK, National Association

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1091
BALWINDER SINGH WHALA; JATINDER KAUR WHALA,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
PNC BANK, National Association,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cv-00894-JCC-IDD)
Argued: January 27, 2016 Decided: March 22, 2016
Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the
opinion, in which Judge Floyd and Senior Judge Davis joined.
ARGUED: Henry Woods McLaughlin, III, LAW OFFICE OF HENRY
MCLAUGHLIN, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellants.
Constantinos George Panagopoulos, BALLARD SPAHR LLP, Washington,
D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Theodore R. Flo, BALLARD SPAHR
LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 6 --

2
NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge:
When Balwinder and Jatinder Whala failed, for several
months, to make installment payments on their mortgage, the
mortgagee, PNC Bank, N.A., foreclosed the mortgage and sold the
Whalas’ house for $460,320, some $90,000 less than what the
Whalas believed was the house’s fair market value. The Whalas
commenced this action for breach of contract, alleging that PNC
Bank’s 30-day notice of default, which led to foreclosure, was
defective because it included, in its statement of the amount
necessary to cure, the amount of a future installment that was
not yet due.
The district court dismissed the complaint under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and we affirm. While the 30-
day notice of default included, in the amount necessary to cure,
a future payment that was to become due during the 30-day notice
period, the statement of the amount to cure was neither
inaccurate nor misleading. We conclude, therefore, that PNC
Bank did not breach the loan documents in giving notice.
I
In April 2007, to purchase a home in Lorton, Virginia, the
Whalas borrowed $419,000 from PNC Bank’s predecessor. The
notice of default provision that was contained in the note that
the Whalas signed provided:

-- 2 of 6 --

3
If I am in default, the Note Holder may send me a
written notice telling me that if I do not pay the
overdue amount by a certain date, the Note Holder may
require me to pay immediately the full amount of
Principal which has not been paid and all the interest
that I owe on that amount. That date must be at least
30 days after the date on which the notice is mailed
to me or delivered by other means.
The deed of trust securing the note provided similarly:
Lender shall give notice to Borrower prior to
acceleration following Borrower’s breach of any
covenant or agreement . . . . The notice shall
specify: (a) the default; (b) the action required to
cure the default; (c) a date, not less than 30 days
from the date the notice is given to Borrower, by
which the default must be cured; and (d) that failure
to cure the default on or before the date specified in
the notice may result in acceleration of the sums
secured . . . and sale of the Property.
Approximately three years later, the Whalas failed to make
payments for installments due on March 1, April 1, and May 1,
2010. PNC Bank then sent the Whalas a notice of default and
acceleration, dated May 4, 2010, which included the following:
The action required to cure the breach or default
mentioned above on or before June 3, 2010 is as
follows: *Payment in certified funds of $14,770.18
which includes the 6/1/2010 installment and applicable
late charges, property inspection and non-sufficient
funds fees.
Failure to cure the breach or default by said date,
will result in the acceleration of the maturity date
of the Note . . . .
(Emphasis added).
The Whalas did not cure the default by June 3, 2010, or at
any time after that date, and PNC Bank initiated foreclosure
proceedings, selling the house in May 2011 at auction for

-- 3 of 6 --

4
$460,320. The Whalas contend that, at that time, the fair
market value of the house was at least $550,000.
The Whalas commenced this breach of contract action in
Virginia state court in April 2014, and PNC Bank removed it to
federal court. The Whalas alleged that PNC Bank breached the
provisions of the loan documents with its May 4, 2010 notice by
improperly inflating the payment necessary to cure the default
by including the amount to become due on June 1, 2010. They
argue that the defective notice produced the foreclosure sale
that resulted in their loss of equity in the house and other
damages. The district court granted PNC Bank’s motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding that the May 4, 2010
notice of default was not defective.
This appeal followed.
II
While the Whalas do not dispute that they had defaulted on
their loan prior to PNC Bank’s notice of May 4, 2010, they argue
that the notice failed to accurately state the “overdue amount”
because it included an amount not yet due -- the June 1, 2010
installment. They reason that, because PNC Bank failed to
provide them with an accurate notice, it breached its legal
obligations under the loan documents, leading to an illegal
foreclosure and sale.

-- 4 of 6 --

5
PNC Bank contends that the 30-day default notice was
accurate and did not breach the loan documents. It argues that
the notice simply alerted the Whalas that they had to pay the
overdue amount as of the date of the notice and that they also
had to pay any amount that came due during the 30-day cure
period, which included the June 1, 2010 installment.
We agree with PNC Bank. The loan documents required PNC
Bank to provide a 30-day notice specifying the amount of money
that the Whalas had to pay to cure their default and avoid
foreclosure. Because the default notice was dated May 4, 2010,
and 30 days thereafter was June 3, 2010 -- when the June 1
installment would also be past due -- the notice accurately
stated, “The action required to cure the breach or default . . .
on or before June 3, 2010, is as follows: *Payment in certified
funds of $14,770.18 which includes the 6/1/2010 installment.”
(Emphasis added). This notice made clear that, because the
Whalas had until June 3, 2010, to cure the default -- a date
that fell beyond the due date for the June 1 installment -- the
amount required to cure as of June 3 would also have to include
the June 1 installment. Any reasonable person would also
conclude that, if the Whalas had chosen to cure before June 1,
2010, they could have simply withheld the June 1 installment
until June 1 and made that payment then.

-- 5 of 6 --

6
Accordingly, we conclude that PNC Bank did not, as alleged,
breach the loan documents -- the note and the deed of trust --
and therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED

-- 6 of 6 --