Goss v. Bank of America, N.A., 917 F. Supp. 2d 445

Gosses’ 2007 mortgage in Maryland is serviced by Bank of America, N.A. (BANA).
They fell behind on payments in 2010 due to unemployment and other factors.
June 21, 2011, BANA informed the Gosses that it referred their account to the Home Retention Division to review for HAMP and other options.
Gosses submitted a HAMP application, including one via a third party, and later applied directly on May 14, 2012.
BANA purportedly offered a HAMP Trial Period Plan in June 2012 that would raise rather than reduce their payment, which the Gosses could not afford.
BANA terminated workout options in August 2012, and the Gosses filed this state-law-based action alleging various claims; the court granted dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether MCPA or fraud claims are actionable given lack of injury and reliance	Gosses relied on BANA’s misrepresentations about HAMP.	Reliance not shown; no cognizable injury from statements.	Dismissed; no actionable injury or reliance shown.
Whether promissory estoppel supports enforcement of HAMP promise	June 2011 letter constituted a definite promise.	Letter was merely an invitation to pursue modification; no definite promise.	Dismissed; no clear, definite promise to act.
Whether there was a negotiable implied contract based on BANA's letter	Letter and application materials created a contract for a TPP.	No binding agreement; letter was an informal intent, not a contract.	Dismissed; no mutual assent or definite terms.
Whether negligence or negligent misrepresentation claims are cognizable given no actionable duty	Bank owed a duty in processing HAMP application.	No duty arising beyond loan contract; no fiduciary duty.	Dismissed; no tort duty beyond contract.
Whether HAMP creates a private right of action enforceable via Maryland claims			Dismissed; federal HAMP does not create a private action.

Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2012) (absence of private right of action under HAMP recognized in mixed contexts)
Stagikas v. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., 795 F.Supp.2d 129 (D. Mass. 2011) (reiterates HAMP framework and private-action limitations)
Bowers v. Bank of America, N.A., 905 F. Supp. 2d 697 (D. Md. 2012) (private-right-of-action limitations under HAMP and state-law claims)
Legore v. OneWest Bank, FSB, 898 F. Supp. 2d 912 (D. Md. 2012) (HAMP-related contract rights; private action absent under federal scheme)
Parker v. Columbia Bank, 91 Md. App. 346, 604 A.2d 521 (Md. Ct. App. 1992) (elements of Maryland fraud standard; reliance required)
Cochran v. Norkunas, 398 Md. 1, 919 A.2d 700 (2007) (contract formation; written agreement required for binding contract)