In re O'Biso, 462 B.R. 147

Debtor Sharon O’Biso granted a $360,000 mortgage on her home at 1946 Sawmill Court, Toms River, NJ; the mortgage was assigned to Aurora on December 3, 2008.
Aurora notified Debtor of foreclosure in July 2009 and September 2009/July 2010 provided trial period plans under HAMP.
Debtor contends she made payments and provided documents under the TPPs, aiming for a final loan modification.
Aurora contends not all payments were received and required documentation was not provided, justifying foreclosure.
Debtor filed for Chapter 13 on April 15, 2011; Aurora filed a proof of claim on June 28, 2011 for substantial arrears.
Debtor moved to expunge Aurora’s claim on July 25, 2011, arguing HAMP/TPPs entitle a final modification; Aurora opposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Aurora’s claim is subject to expungement based on HAMP/TPPs	Debtor argues final modification exists under HAMP via TPPs and Debtor performed.	Aurora denies a final modification was guaranteed and claims not all docs/payments were provided.	Debtor fails to show entitlement to expungement.
Whether HAMP permits a private cause of action against servicers	Debtor contends a breach under HAMP or TPPs entitles relief.	No private right of action under HAMP; modifications not guaranteed.	No private cause of action under HAMP; claim stands.
Whether promissory estoppel supports expungement of the claim	Debtor relied on Aurora’s alleged promise to grant a final modification.	No express promise; TPPs are conditional and not enforceable promises.	Promissory estoppel not established; reliance unreasonable.

In re Graboyes, 371 B.R. 113 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (burden shifting on claim objections governs proof)
In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167 (3d Cir. 1992) (prima facie validity of proofs of claim; burden shifts to objector)
Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174 (U.S. 1988) (private remedies require explicit congressional inference)