Bohnhoff v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
853 F. Supp. 2d 849
D. Minnesota2012Background
- Mortgage note and mortgage executed April 2005 by Christine L. Bohnhoff for 119 50th Ave, Princeton, MN; original principal $288,000.
- Bohnhoff made monthly payments of about $2,000 until September 2009; entered Trial Payment Plan (TPP) under HAMP in late 2009.
- TPP stated it was not a modification and required conditions for modification, including a fully executed Modification Agreement and Modification Effective Date.
- TPP involved trial payments (Nov 2009–Jan 2010) with potential continued payments if not approved for permanent modification.
- NPV calculation in April 2010 deemed her ineligible for modification; by Oct 2011 Wells Fargo had not approved a modification and foreclosure threats began.
- Bohnhoff filed state-court action alleging multiple claims; Wells Fargo removed and moved to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HAMP permits a private right of action. | Bohnhoff seeks relief based on HAMP-related conduct. | HAMP provides no private right of action. | Claims barred to the extent based on HAMP private remedy absent state-law theories. |
| Whether TPP constitutes a modification contract. | TPP and related representations create a modification right. | TPP expressly not a modification; no contract formed. | No contract formed; TPP not a credit agreement modifying the Note. |
| Whether state-law claims survive given the alleged misrepresentations. | Misrepresentations support breach, fraud, and related claims. | TPP and statements fail to meet pleading standards and lack misrepresentation elements. | Fraud and negligent misrepresentation dismissed; breach and related claims fail. |
| Whether Minnesota Residential Mortgage Act claims are preempted by the National Bank Act. | Act provides private right of action for violations. | NBA preempts state-law mortgage practices. | Claim preempted; dismissal warranted. |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted. | Proposed amendments could cure defects. | Amendment would be futile given already faulty theory. | Leave to amend denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, 794 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (D. Minn. 2011) (private remedy under HAMP not implied; state claims evaluated on merits)
- BJC Health Sys. v. Columbia Cas. Co., 478 F.3d 908 (8th Cir. 2007) (fraud pleading requirements and reliance standards under Rule 9)
- Joshi v. St. Luke’s Hosp., Inc., 441 F.3d 552 (8th Cir. 2006) (fraud alleging standards; who, what, when, where, how elements)
- Valspar Refinish, Inc. v. Gaylord’s, Inc., 764 N.W.2d 369 (Minn. 2009) (negligent misrepresentation elements; reliance rules)
- FirstCom, Inc. v. Qwest Corp., 555 F.3d 669 (8th Cir. 2009) (preemption considerations under National Bank Act)
- Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585 (8th Cir. 2009) (pleading standard and plausibility under Iqbal/Twombly)