Attorney prevailed on a Rule 12 Motion, resulting in the dismissal of Plaintiffs' complaint against a mortgage broker

Attorney prevailed on a Rule 12 Motion, resulting in the dismissal of Plaintiffs' complaint against a mortgage broker. Plaintiffs were first-time home buyers and purchasers of new construction residential property. Plaintiffs claimed the mortgage broker, along with several other named defendants, engaged and conspired to engage in predatory lending practices, and as a result they were induced to procure a mortgage in excess of the actual value of the property and which they could not afford. Plaintiffs filed for bankruptcy in July 2004 and received an order of discharge in October 2004. Plaintiffs brought a number of claims under RICO and the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. Defense attorney argued that because Plaintiffs failed to identify their potential RICO and UTPCPL claims as assets in their bankruptcy, even though they knew or had reason to know of the existence of those claims before they filed their bankruptcy petition, Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue the claims subsequently following the conclusion of their bankruptcy. The court agreed and also rejected Plaintiffs' argument that the doctrine of fraudulent concealment equitably tolled their claims, reasoning that Plaintiffs alleged no facts which indicated that the defendants attempted to conceal their respective roles in the mortgage process.