Bosque v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8509
| D. Mass. | 2011Background
- Seven named plaintiffs signed Trial Period Plan (TPP) agreements with Wells Fargo under HAMP to obtain permanent loan modifications.
- TPPs purportedly create contractual obligations: borrowers must comply during a three‑month trial to trigger a permanent modification or a decision on eligibility.
- Plaintiffs allege Wells Fargo complied with TPPs yet failed to provide permanent modification documents or timely notices; some were foreclosed or faced threats.
- Plaintiffs brought state-law claims in diversity: breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and Massachusetts 93A.
- Defendant moved to dismiss; plaintiffs moved for class certification, notice/expedited discovery, and a provisional injunction; court denied without prejudice some relief and granted limited expedited discovery.
- Court assumed truth of well‑pleaded facts for decision on motion to dismiss; addressed standing, contract elements, and 93A considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue under HAMP/EESA | Plaintiffs allege breach of contract under TPPs and ownership of rights independent of HAMP private right. | HAMP/EESA do not create private rights; plaintiffs lack standing to raise contract claims tied to HAMP. | Plaintiffs have standing to pursue state-law contract claims arising from TPPs. |
| Breach of contract for TPPs | TPPs are enforceable contracts; Wells Fargo breached by failing to provide a permanent modification or timely decision. | TPPs are not definite contracts for permanent modification; any obligation is not clearly to grant a modification. | Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged breach of contract; TPPs create enforceable obligations for the trial period. |
| Breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing | Wells Fargo acted to undermine plaintiffs' rights under the TPP despite compliance. | No bad faith proven since conduct may reflect ordinary performance under the program. | Sufficient facts alleged to state a claim for breach of the implied covenant; denial of dismissal warranted. |
| Massachusetts consumer protection act (Chapter 93A) | Defendant engaged in unfair/deceptive practices regarding eligibility and rights under HAMP. | No clear deception or injury linking to the demand letter and class claims; insufficiency of notice aspects. | Claims survive; demand letter sufficiency analyzed under Massachusetts law; dismissal denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guckenberger v. Boston Univ., 957 F. Supp. 2d 306 (D. Mass. 1997) (elements of a valid contract—offer, acceptance, consideration)
- Wit v. Commercial Hotel Co., 253 Mass. 564, 149 N.E. 609 (Mass. 1925) (consideration and contractual obligation principles)
- Leardi v. Brown, 394 Mass. 151, 474 N.E.2d 1094 (Mass. 1985) (broader 93A injury and standing considerations)
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard elaborated; standard for failure to plead)