Christopher Freitas v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 921
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Appellants obtained a home loan and Wells Fargo began servicing it after Lehman Brothers' bankruptcy.
- Appellants attempted to negotiate a HAMP-modification and received conflicting information from Wells Fargo.
- Based on uncertain information, appellants stopped making payments, defaulted, and Wells Fargo foreclosed.
- Appellants filed a Missouri circuit court complaint alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and promissory estoppel and sought injunctive relief.
- Wells Fargo removed the case to federal court and the district court dismissed the claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and 9(b).
- This appeal challenges the district court’s dismissal of both claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraudulent misrepresentation sufficiency | Freitas alleges Wells Fargo knew falsity and caused reliance. | Statements were future expectations, not actionable misrepresentations; lack of definite facts. | Affirmed; no plausible misrepresentation claim. |
| Rule 9(b) pleading standard | Relaxation of 9(b) should apply given discovery needs (cited Doran). | No need to relax; plaintiff had information to plead specifics. | Affirmed; Rule 9(b) heightening remains required. |
| Promissory estoppel viability | There was a definite promise to modify the loan relied upon to the detriment of appellants. | Promises were uncertain, non-definite, and not a proper contract-level offer. | Affirmed; no plausible promissory estoppel claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Renaissance Leasing, LLC v. Vermeer Mfg. Co., 322 S.W.3d 112 (Mo. 2010) (fraud standards; en banc Missouri Supreme Court discussion)
- Abels v. Farmers Commodities Corp., 259 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2001) (Rule 9(b) requirements; time, place, content of false representations)
- Summerhill v. Terminix, Inc., 637 F.3d 877 (8th Cir. 2011) (who, what, when, where, how pleading mantra)
- Prenger v. Baumhoer, 939 S.W.2d 23 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997) (definite promise requirement in Missouri contract-like estoppel)
- City of St. Joseph, Mo. v. Sw. Bell Tel., 439 F.3d 468 (8th Cir. 2006) (promises must be definite and delineated like offers)
- Richter v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., 686 F.3d 847 (8th Cir. 2012) (pleading standards; standard for district court review)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading standard requiring plausible claims)