Bowers v. Bank of America, N.A., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168130

Bowers, pro se, filed state-law claims in Maryland asserting BOA failed to process a HAMP mortgage modification application.
BOA removed the case to federal court; Bowers moves for remand, and BOA moves to dismiss.
HAMP is administered via SPAs with the government; TPPs may lead to permanent modifications to avoid foreclosure.
Bowers purchased his home in 1993 for $213,000; BOA services the mortgage.
Bowers alleges eleven counts, but contends only that BOA’s inaction on his HAMP application caused harm.
Bowers did not allege he entered into a HAMP TPP or any SPA as a third-party beneficiary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the case	Bowers claims no federal question; seeks remand	Diversity with amount in controversy exceeds $75,000; federal jurisdiction exists	Remand denied; jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Whether BOA’s failure to process a HAMP modification supports any independent claim	BOA violated HAMP/SPAs, entitling relief	No independent HAMP-based claim without a TPP/SPA; no private right of action by homeowners	Counts dismissed as no viable HAMP-based claims independent of SPA duties
Whether the eleven counts state plausible claims under Maryland law	Counts I–XI allege fraud, misrepresentation, and breach	Without a TPP/SPA or special duty, counts fail; MD law does not recognize some asserted claims	Counts I–IV, VI, VII, IX, X, XI dismissed; Count V dismissed for unjust enrichment
Whether Maryland tort and contract theories support relief for inaction-related damages	Inaction caused financial hardship warranting relief	No cognizable legal injury from inaction without more	Dismissed as lacking compensable injury/link to BOA's conduct

Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara County, Cal., 131 S. Ct. 1342 (U.S. 2011) (no private right of action to enforce government guidelines like HAMP)
Ellerin v. Fairfax Sav. F.S.B., 652 A.2d 1117 (Md. 1995) (punitive damages limitations in Maryland)
Legore v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 898 F. Supp. 2d 912 (D. Md. 2012) (homeowner claims under HAMP may create enforceable rights if a TPP exists)
Brengle v. Greenbelt Homes, Inc., 804 F. Supp. 2d 447 (D. Md. 2011) (Maryland emotional distress limits; no extreme conduct by bank shown)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Ford, 204 Md. App. 1, 40 A.3d 514 (Md. 2012) (Maryland does not recognize negligent infliction of emotional distress as distinct from intentional)
Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2012) (healthcare/contract status; third-party beneficiary limitations under Astra)
Yousef v. Trustbank Savs., F.S.B., 568 A.2d 1134 (Md. App. 1990) (bank-customer fiduciary duty standard is generally contractual)