Anderson v. Recontrust Co., 2017 MT 313

Kenneth and Bobbie Anderson defaulted on a residential mortgage and sought a HAMP loan modification from Bank of America in September 2011; ReconTrust was the trustee and FNMA later purchased the property at a scheduled foreclosure sale.
Andersons allege Bank of America repeatedly told them they preliminarily qualified for HAMP, then rescinded that eligibility, and the trustee proceeded with foreclosure.
Andersons sued Bank of America, ReconTrust, and FNMA asserting claims including negligence, negligent misrepresentation, actual fraud, and violations of the Montana Consumer Protection Act (MCPA).
Bank of America and ReconTrust moved to dismiss under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Andersons opposed and submitted a supplemental affidavit but did not move to convert the motion to summary judgment under M. R. Civ. P. 12(d).
The district court dismissed the negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and MCPA claims for failure to plead sufficient facts; Andersons appealed only those dismissals and challenged the court’s refusal to convert the motion to summary judgment sua sponte.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the amended complaint stated sufficient facts to survive dismissal on negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and MCPA claims	Andersons: Bank’s statements that they qualified for HAMP (and later rescinded) and related conduct gave rise to duties and caused reliance and loss	Bank/ReconTrust: Allegations amount to an unenforceable executory oral modification and do not allege special/fiduciary duties, detrimental reliance, or causation	Court: Affirmed dismissal; pleadings lacked factual allegations of duty, causation, and detrimental reliance necessary for those claims
Whether the district court abused discretion by failing to convert the 12(b)(6) motion to summary judgment after Andersons filed a supplemental affidavit	Andersons: Filing the affidavit required conversion and consideration of extrinsic facts	Defendants: Court may ignore materials outside the pleadings or decline conversion unless it considers them and provides notice	Court: No abuse of discretion; mere filing of an affidavit does not compel conversion under Rule 12(d); Andersons could have moved to convert but did not

Kleinhesselink v. Chevron, 277 Mont. 158, 920 P.2d 108 (Mont. 1996) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard and accepting well-pled facts as true)
Boreen v. Christenson, 267 Mont. 405, 884 P.2d 761 (Mont. 1994) (pleading standards under Rule 12(b)(6))
Morrow v. Bank of Am., N.A., 375 Mont. 38, 324 P.3d 1167 (Mont. 2014) (when lender conduct may create fiduciary duties and factual issues preclude dismissal)
Western Sec. Bank v. Eide Bailly LLP, 359 Mont. 34, 249 P.3d 35 (Mont. 2010) (elements of negligent misrepresentation)
Draggin’ Y Cattle Co. v. Addink & Junkermier, 372 Mont. 334, 312 P.3d 451 (Mont. 2013) (fiduciary duty context in professional-advice relationships)
Dulaney v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 375 Mont. 117, 324 P.3d 1211 (Mont. 2014) (proof of standard of care and factual issues for negligence/fiduciary breach)
Stanton v. Wells Fargo Bank Montana, N.A., 335 Mont. 384, 152 P.3d 115 (Mont. 2007) (lender’s duties limited absent special relationship)
Jones v. Montana Univ. Sys., 337 Mont. 1, 155 P.3d 1247 (Mont. 2007) (complaint must plead material facts, not mere suspicion)
Ryan v. City of Bozeman, 279 Mont. 507, 928 P.2d 228 (Mont. 1996) (pleading requirements to adequately state a cause of action)