French v. The Bank of New York Mellon
729 F.3d 17
1st Cir.
2013

Background

  • French borrowed from Countrywide secured by a mortgage on property at 74 Route 127, Warner, NH.
  • Countrywide later substituted Appendix A with a detailed description of Lot 87 and related parcels.
  • The substitute Appendix A description was recorded and the mortgage then assigned to BONY, which pursued foreclosure.
  • French filed suit seeking to enjoin foreclosure on grounds of NH statute of frauds and alleged fraud in the substitution.
  • District court dismissed most counts; on appeal, French challenges only the mortgage-based claims and BONY’s foreclosures.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Does the NH statute of frauds render the mortgage too vague? French argues the original description is insufficient under the statute. BONY contends the description, when viewed with surrounding circumstances, is sufficiently definite. No; the description is sufficiently definite under the statute.
Does unilateral substitution of Appendix A void the mortgage or bar foreclosure? French asserts substitution constitutes fraud or unclean hands requiring relief. BONY argues substitution reflected parties' intent and is not fraudulent. Substitution does not void the mortgage or bar foreclosure.

Key Cases Cited

  • Schatz v. Republican State Leadership Comm., 669 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2012) (plaintiff must plead plausible facts to survive Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
  • Mass. Ret. Sys. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 716 F.3d 229 (1st Cir. 2013) (pleading standard for claims under Rule 12(b)(6))
  • Jesseman v. Aurelio, 106 N.H. 529 (N.H. 1965) (statute of frauds requires reasonable certainty of land meant to be transferred)
  • White v. Poole, 74 N.H. 71 (N.H. 1906) (principles of certainty under NH statute of frauds)
  • Cunningham v. Singer, 111 N.H. 159 (N.H. 1971) (certainty suffices if contract meaning is intelligible)
  • Gilbert v. Tremblay, 111 A. 314 (N.H. 1920) (description can be sufficiently definite by unique address)
  • Weale v. Mass. Gen. Hous. Corp., 117 N.H. 428 (N.H. 1977) (statutory enforcement balanced with equity)
  • Jay Edwards, Inc. v. Baker, 130 N.H. 41 (N.H. 1987) (fraud elements required for misrepresentation)
  • Tessier v. Rockefeller, 162 N.H. 324 (N.H. 2011) (fraud elements and knowledge of falsity)
  • Ed Peters Jewelry Co., Inc. v. C & J Jewelry Co., Inc., 215 F.3d 182 (1st Cir. 2000) (applying fraud standards in commercial context)
  • Trans-Spec Truck Serv., Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc., 524 F.3d 315 (1st Cir. 2008) (standard for evaluating fraud and equitable claims)
  • Randall v. Laconia, 679 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (waiver and procedural consideration on appeal)
  • Ciampa, 542 F.3d 927 (1st Cir. 2008) (context limit on considering new arguments on appeal)
  • Ortiz v. Gaston Cnty. Dyeing Mach. Co., 277 F.3d 594 (1st Cir. 2002) (failure to raise argument in briefing results in waiver)
Read the full case