Blakeney v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
4:12-cv-00845
S.D. Tex.Dec 21, 2012Background
- Blakeney financed a home purchase in 2006; mortgage later sold to U.S. Bank and serviced by Wells Fargo.
- Blakeney alleges Wells Fargo participated in HAMP/HAMP-related HAFA programs per Handbook guidelines.
- Default occurred in September 2011; notice of default issued December 1, 2011 inviting cure options.
- Blakeney applied for HAMP modification (Nov 29, 2011) but was denied (Jan 3, 2012).
- Brice sent a letter (Jan 10, 2012) indicating cure required payment in full; Blakeney sought HAFA short sale or deed-in-lieu but allegedly denied.
- Suit filed in state court (Mar 5, 2012) alleging breach of contract and TDCA violations; removal to federal court occurred; motions to dismiss were pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract: failure to consider HAMP/HAFA options | Blakeney claims deed of trust required consideration of all loss-mitigation options. | Deed of trust does not obligate review under HAMP/HAFA before acceleration. | Dismissed; no contractual obligation to consider HAMP/HAFA. |
| TDCA § 392.301(a)(8) – threat to foreclose | Wells Fargo/Brice threatened foreclosure without proper consideration of options. | Foreclosure action not prohibited by law; no violation shown. | Dismissed; not pleaded to violate statute. |
| TDCA § 392.304(a)(8) and § 392.304(a)(19) – misrepresentation/deception | Charges for reinstatement and statements about cure were deceptive. | Charges could be valid; statements not shown as deceptive as a matter of law. | Dismissed; insufficient specificity and no misrepresentation established. |
| Waiver and quasi-estoppel defenses to acceleration | Wells Fargo/Brice waived/acted inconsistently by considering options. | No active suit by defendants; defenses not properly before court. | Dismissed as defenses to claims not pled by defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (pleading may proceed to discovery if plausible; Rule 8 pleadings standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (reiterates plausibility pleading standard)
- Lone Star Fund V (U.S.) v. Barclays Bank PLC, 594 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2010) (law-of-the-case standard for reviewing complaints; standard for dismissal)