Helmus v. Chase Home Finance, LLC
890 F. Supp. 2d 806
W.D. Mich.2012Background
- Plaintiffs Robert and Marian Helmus filed a mortgage-related complaint in Kent County, Michigan, which Chase removed to this court on September 22, 2011.
- The claims arise from plaintiffs’ mortgage on property at 8109 Oldfield Ct. SE, Byron Center, Michigan.
- Plaintiffs assert breach of contract, promissory estoppel, MRCPA, and RESPA violations against Chase.
- Plaintiffs entered a Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) Trial Period Plan (TPP) beginning around May 2009, with three payments of $1,223.33 each.
- Chase allegedly mishandled payments, failed to secure a permanent modification after the TPP, and imposed improper charges.
- The court grants Chase’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismisses the complaint in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HAMP precludes a state-law breach claim based on a TPP | Helmus argues the TPP is a modification contract under HAMP. | Chase contends HAMP provides no private right of action and the TPP cannot form a state-law claim. | HAMP does not bar a state-law breach claim based on a TPP. |
| Whether the TPP constitutes an enforceable contract under Michigan law | Helmus claims the TPP, as part of the contract, obligates modification upon compliance. | Chase argues the TPP lacked an authorized signature and binding terms. | TPP did not constitute a binding offer due to lack of authorized signature and meeting of all terms. |
| Whether the TPP is barred by the Statute of Frauds for oral loan-modification promises | Helmus seeks enforcement of the alleged modification terms. | The Statute of Frauds requires a signed writing for promises to modify loans. | Statute of Frauds bars the breach claim against a financial institution for an oral loan-modification promise. |
| Whether promissory estoppel survives the Statute of Frauds and other defects | Helmus relies on a fallback equitable theory. | Promissory estoppel requires a definite promise and reasonable reliance, and is barred by the Statute of Frauds. | Promissory estoppel claim fails due to lack of a definite promise and Statute of Frauds. |
| Whether MRCPA/RCPA and RESPA claims are sufficiently pleaded | Helmus asserts misstatements and improper collection/handling of payments. | Chase contends the MRCPA claim is unsupported and RESPA damages are not pled. | MRCPA claim dismissed for lack of factual grounding; RESPA claim dismissed for lack of pecuniary damages. |
Key Cases Cited
- Klever v. Klever, 333 Mich. 179 (Mich. 1952) (contract construction principles apply; meeting of minds required)
- Crown Tech. Park v. D & N Bank, FSB, 242 Mich.App. 538 (Mich.App. 2000) (statute of frauds bars oral promises to modify loans against financial institutions)
- Grosse Pointe Park v. Mich. Mun. Liab. & Prop. Pool, 473 Mich. 188 (Mich. 2005) (contract interpretation and reliance principles guide claims against public entities)
- Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2012) (HAMP lacks private right of action; informs contract-based claims under state law)