Tag: HAMP

Bankr. M.D.N.C.: Rutledge v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.- State Law Claims for Failure Related to HAMP Modification

Summary:

The Debtor, after various alleged inconsistencies and shenanigans by Wells Fargo in application of her payments and insurance proceeds, as well as failures in the review of her loan modification application, filed bankruptcy and brought suit alleging, among other causes of action, breaches of contract and duties of good faith & fair dealing and fiduciary duty, fraud and constructive fraud, and violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practice Act. Wells Fargo sought dismissal for failing to state a claim. Following Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2012), the bankruptcy court examined the treatment of allegations of state law violations arising from failures under federal regulations related to the providing and servicing of mortgages, finding that the cases fell into three categories: 1.… Read More

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , , ,

Bankr. E.D.N.C.: In re Davis – Unclean Hands with Loan Modification and Motion for Relief from Stay

Summary:

The Debtors were delinquent on their Chapter 13 plan payments, which included disbursements to Green Tree for a mobile home and land. Accordingly, on February 5, 2014, Green Treee filed a Motion for Relief from Stay.

On February 1, 2014, however, Green Tree sent to the Debtors directly a letter offering to provide assistance with delinquent payments. (Green Tree also sent an identical 2nd letter on the same day.) A 3rd letter was sent by Green Tree on February 20, 2014, stating that the Debtors’ loan modification application was incomplete and the Debtors had 30 days to provide complete information.… Read More

Tagged with: , , ,

4th Circuit: Haylett v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.- No Private Right of Action for HAMP Denial

Summary:

After falling delinquent on their mortgage payments to Wells Fargo in early 2010, the Hayletts sought a HAMP modification. After being supplied with initial documentation, Wells Fargo requested further information from the Hayletts on March 1, 2010, allowing ten days to respond. The Hayletts provided the requested documents on March 22, 2010, but Wells Fargo denied the request and proceeded to foreclosure. The Hayletts brought suit alleging breach of implied-in-fact contract, negligence, violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”), negligent misrepresentation, and common law fraud. All causes of action were dismissed by the district court which held that absent a Trial Period Plan (“TPP”) there was no privity of contract on which such claims could be based.… Read More

Tagged with: , , ,
Top