Gloria Martin-Janson v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
536 F. App'x 394
5th Cir.2013Background
- Martin-Janson purchased a Austin, Texas residence in 2007 with a purchase-money mortgage and paid on time until 2009.
- A bankruptcy in 2009 stayed foreclosure; plan required continued payments; she made some payments but not all.
- Bankruptcy stay lifted in May 2010 after continued missed payments; JPMorgan communicated that modification was forthcoming.
- Between 2009 and 2011 JPMorgan repeatedly promised a loan modification, instructed her not to make payments, and said arrears would roll into a modified loan; JPMorgan would not credit payments during review.
- Martin-Janson filed suit in 2011 challenging foreclosure; district court dismissed most claims but left promissory estoppel; in 2012 promissory estoppel was dismissed as potential statute-of-frauds issue; Martin-Janson then filed a second suit in 2012 asserting waiver and promissory estoppel.
- The panel affirmed waiver dismissal with prejudice and reversed dismissal of promissory estoppel, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver: whether JM waived rights to foreclose | Martin-Janson alleges JM’s post-2010 forbearance and non-foreclosure behaviors created a waiver. | JPMorgan argues loan terms and forbearance do not constitute waived rights; contract provisions control. | Waiver claim affirmed as properly dismissed (no waiver shown under contract terms). |
| Promissory estoppel viability given statute of frauds | Martin-Janson contends JM’s repeated promises created a promissory estoppel that could override statute of frauds. | JM asserts the claim is barred by Texas statute of frauds for loans over $50,000. | Promissory estoppel claim survives at this stage; remanded for further proceedings to address statute-of-frauds defenses. |
| Timeliness and pleading viability of promissory estoppel | Amended complaint plausibly alleges actionable promissory estoppel with reliance and injury. | Defenses under statute of frauds and sufficiency of allegations. | Plausible promissory estoppel claim pled; reversed and remanded. |
| Effect of forbearance language on waiver/accelerate rights | Forbearance to modify or delay payments affected acceleration rights. | Forbearance provisions do not waive acceleration rights and are not transfered by extension to successors. | Loan documents foreclose finding of waiver based on forbearance. |
Key Cases Cited
- EPCO Carbon Dioxide Prods., Inc. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 467 F.3d 466 (5th Cir. 2006) (deference to pleadings on motion to dismiss; standard for plausibility)
- Jernigan v. Langley, 111 S.W.3d 153 (Tex. 2003) (waiver ordinarily fact-specific but can be law where undisputed)
- First Interstate Bank of Ariz., N.A. v. Interfund Corp., 924 F.2d 588 (5th Cir. 1991) (waiver as a matter of law where undisputed facts)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Moore Burger, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 492 S.W.2d 934 (Tex. 1973) (promissory estoppel overcoming statute of frauds needs signed promise)
- Sun Exploration & Prod. Co. v. Benton, 728 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. 1987) (definition and scope of waiver)
- Wheeler v. White, 398 S.W.2d 93 (Tex. 1965) (promissory estoppel defense to unjust result)
- In re Weekley Homes, L.P., 180 S.W.3d 127 (Tex. 2005) (promissory estoppel and statute-of-frauds interaction)