Hannigan v. Bank of America, N.A.
48 F. Supp. 3d 135
D. Mass.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Hannigan refinanced in 2004 with a $638,400 loan secured by a Kingston, MA mortgage later securitized; Bank of America serviced, Wells Fargo trustee.
- In 2009, after falling behind, Bank of America offered a modification requiring a $7,000 upfront payment and $3,502 monthly payments with a new balance of $614,572.
- Plaintiffs provided three reduced payments under a forbearance but argue the $7,000 payment was waived; Bank of America disputes waiver.
- A second modification offer in 2009 proposed higher payments; plaintiffs rejected as a mistake.
- From 2010 to 2013 plaintiffs repeatedly applied for modifications; denials followed due to documentation or lack of contractual authority from Wells Fargo.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in state court March 2013, removed to federal court May 2013; amended January 2014 to add Wells Fargo claim; defendants moved to dismiss late January 2014.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract against Bank of America | BOA promised HAMP modification but failed to form contract. | BOA followed explicit procedures; plaintiffs did not accept offers. | Count I dismissed |
| Negligent misrepresentation against Bank of America | BOA misrepresented eligibility and required terms; caused reliance and pecuniary loss. | No plausible pecuniary harm; payments were contractually due. | Count II denied |
| Promissory estoppel against Bank of America | A promise and reasonable reliance on not paying $7,000 implied modification. | Reliance on ambiguous promises does not create enforceable modification. | Count III denied |
| Unfair or deceptive trade practices under Chapter 93A against Bank of America | Pattern of misrepresenting HAMP status and mishandling applications constitutes unfair conduct. | No single action establishes 93A violation; must be viewed in context. | Count IV denied |
| Unfair or deceptive trade practices under Chapter 93A against Wells Fargo | Wells Fargo, as note holder, directed actions and granted a lien release. | Wells Fargo did not commit unfair or deceptive acts; liability cannot attach. | Count V dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (probability, not mere possibility, required at pleading stage)
- Manning v. Boston Medical Ctr. Corp., 725 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2013) (two-step plausibility standard in the First Circuit)
- Canney v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 353 Mass. 158, 228 N.E.2d 723 (Mass. 1967) (elements of contract require offer, acceptance, consideration, breach, damages)
- Mass. Eye & Ear Infirmary v. QLT Phototherapeutics, Inc., 552 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2009) (unfairness and substantial injury standard under 93A)
- NASCO, Inc. v. Public Storage, Inc., 127 F.3d 148 (1st Cir. 1997) (chapter 93A liability may attach despite no contract breach)