In Roach v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., the North Carolina Court of Appeals again draws a hard line between conduct that feels unfair and conduct that is legally actionable under Chapter 75. The court affirmed summary judgment for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., holding that the borrowers’ grievances — however sympathetic — did not amount to unfair and deceptive trade practices.
This is a foreclosure case with a long backstory, and that backstory matters.
The Longer Backstory: Two Bankruptcies, No Durable Resolution
What the Court of Appeals opinion understandably treats as background noise is, for consumer bankruptcy lawyers, a familiar and critical pattern.
After the initial loan modification in 2011 and years of financial distress, Julie Roach filed two Chapter 13 cases in the Western District of North Carolina:
-
Case No. 13-31410 (WDNC)
-
Case No. 16-30128 (WDNC)
Both cases were dismissed, apparently due to missed plan payments.
That fact does not appear to have been disputed, and it quietly explains much of what followed. Repeated Chapter 13 filings that never complete often leave debtors in the worst possible posture:
-
foreclosure delayed but not resolved,
-
arrears growing larger, and
-
servicer patience wearing thin.
By the time the January 2016 foreclosure sale occurred, the Roaches were already deep into the cycle of “almost saved, but not quite.”
The State-Court Claims: Chapter 75 as a Last Line of Defense
Fast forward several years, and the Roaches sued Wells Fargo under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, arguing two main theories:
-
Misrepresentation — Wells Fargo allegedly said the foreclosure sale would be postponed if “proof of funds” and a “gift letter” were submitted.
-
Wrongful denial of reinstatement — the deed of trust allegedly allowed reinstatement during the upset-bid period.
The Court of Appeals rejected both theories, and in doing so reiterated several principles that bankruptcy and consumer lawyers ignore at their peril.
Why the Chapter 75 Claim Failed
1. “Eleventh-Hour” Efforts Are Not Deception
The court emphasized that:
-
Plaintiffs had long notice of the foreclosure sale.
-
Wells Fargo had no obligation to negotiate or postpone at all.
-
The documents submitted at the last minute were, at best, conditional and incomplete.
Even assuming Wells Fargo said it would “review” documents, proceeding with the sale did not amount to substantial aggravating circumstances. Without that extra layer of egregious conduct, Chapter 75 simply does not apply.
As the court essentially said: this may feel wrong, but it is not deceptive under North Carolina law.
2. Reinstatement Rights Live (and Die) in Contract Law
The reinstatement argument failed for a different reason. Even if the deed of trust allowed reinstatement:
-
A power-of-sale foreclosure is contractual, not judicial.
-
Any wrongful refusal to reinstate would therefore be breach of contract, not an unfair trade practice.
-
A breach claim — notably — was not what plaintiffs pled.
Once again, pleading strategy mattered.
The Missing Piece: Timing and the Mortgage Modification Program
Perhaps the most striking feature of this case is when it all happened.
Julie Roach’s second Chapter 13 case was dismissed in 2018 — just as the Western District of North Carolina’s Mortgage Modification Program (MMP) was being implemented.
For those of us practicing in WDNC, the irony is hard to miss.
Had the case survived long enough to meaningfully engage the MMP:
-
There would have been structured deadlines and formal servicer accountability.
-
Communication failures and “fax black holes” would have been less likely.
-
Modification review would have occurred inside the bankruptcy case, not in the shadows of an imminent foreclosure sale.
-
And, critically, the process might have produced a sustainable payment that made plan success — and case completion — possible.
Instead, the Roaches were caught in the older system: informal loss-mitigation conversations, inconsistent representations, and last-minute scrambling with catastrophic consequences.
Why This Case Matters to Bankruptcy Lawyers
Roach is not just a Chapter 75 decision. It is a cautionary tale about what happens when distressed homeowners run out of procedural guardrails.
It reinforces that:
-
Chapter 75 is not a substitute for a viable bankruptcy strategy.
-
Repeated dismissed Chapter 13s weaken, rather than strengthen, a borrower’s position.
-
Once foreclosure occurs, state-law remedies narrow dramatically.
-
Programs like the WDNC Mortgage Modification Program exist precisely to prevent this kind of end-stage collapse — but only if the case lasts long enough to use them.
Bottom Line
The Court of Appeals closed with a telling observation: the dispute boiled down to moral unease versus legal entitlement — and entitlement won.
From a bankruptcy perspective, the deeper lesson is this:
Timing matters. Programmatic tools matter. And surviving long enough in Chapter 13 to use them can make all the difference.
By the time the Roaches reached Chapter 75, the foreclosure had already happened — and North Carolina law was no longer inclined to rescue them.
To read a copy of the transcript, please see:
Blog comments