Biltcliffe v. CitiMortgage, Inc.
772 F.3d 925
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Defendant CitiMortgage foreclosed after default on mortgage given to Plaintiff Biltcliffe.
- Mortgage allowed acceleration after notice and cure period; lender could invoke statute power of sale on uncured default.
- 2008: default notices sent to Biltcliffes, warning of potential acceleration if not cured; no immediate acceleration confirmed in record.
- 2010: acceleration notice issued; bankruptcy filing followed in 2011.
- 2011: HAMP modification offer accepted by signing; signed copy not returned, modification not finalized.
- 2012: foreclosure sale notice sent; Plaintiff filed federal complaint alleging contract breach, unjust enrichment, and bad-faith/fair-dealing breach; district court granted summary judgment for CitiMortgage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper scope of appeal | Appeal from both summary judgment and reconsideration denial | Appeal limited to reconsideration ruling based on notice | Jurisdiction limited to reconsideration denial; cannot review underlying summary judgment |
| Rule 59(e) standard for reconsideration | District court abused discretion by not addressing cited authorities and new evidence | No abuse; challenged issues already properly decided or not new evidence | No abuse of discretion; reconsideration denial affirmed |
| Whether 2008 demand letters accelerated the debt | Letters could constitute acceleration or create obligation to accelerate | Letters warned of potential acceleration; true acceleration occurred in 2010 | No acceleration in 2008; acceleration occurred in 2010 |
| Unjust enrichment vs contract claim | Unjust enrichment viable despite contract | Contract governs obligations; unjust enrichment not viable when contract exists | Unjust enrichment claim rejected as duplicative; contract claim adequate remedy |
| Newly discovered evidence and Rule 59(e) relief | New affidavits could justify relief | Affidavits not new evidence; could have been presented earlier | Affidavits not grounds for relief; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Barry, 502 F.3d 244 (1992) (Rule 3(c) jurisdictional requirements are strict)
- Diaz Aviation Corp. v. Airport Aviation Servs., Inc., 716 F.3d 256 (1st Cir. 2013) (reconsideration scope and underlying claims)
- Town of Norwood v. New England Power Co., 202 F.3d 408 (1st Cir. 2000) (reconsideration review where points are intertwined with underlying decision)
- Kotler v. Am. Tobacco Co., 981 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1992) (notice of appeal designations and waiver of review)
- McKenna v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 693 F.3d 207 (1st Cir. 2012) (issues intertwined with underlying judgment; scope of review)
- Markel Am. Ins. Co. v. Díaz-Santiago, 674 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2012) (review standards for reconsideration and related arguments)
- Alicea v. Machete Music, 744 F.3d 773 (1st Cir. 2014) (new evidence and Rule 59(e) relief considerations)
- Global Naps, Inc. v. Verizon New England, Inc., 489 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 2007) (standard for reconsideration relief)
- Graphic Communications Int'l Union, Local 12-N v. Quebecor Printing Providence, Inc., 270 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (district court’s discretion on filing deadlines)