Kang v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC
3:23-cv-05106
W.D. Wash.Sep 20, 2024Background
- Plaintiffs Manjeet and Amrik Kang sued Nationstar Mortgage LLC and U.S. Bank to stop a pending trustee sale on their property, alleging breach of terms related to a loan modification, escrow payment management, and incentive payments.
- The Kangs received a mortgage loan in 2006, defaulted, and pursued a loan modification with Nationstar in 2016, which resulted in a Home Affordable Modification Agreement (HAMA) but disputes remained over additional terms like principal forgiveness and incentive payments mentioned in summary documents.
- Kangs alleged Nationstar did not honor a purported agreement for debt forgiveness (PRA term) and a $5,000 incentive, and mismanaged escrow and payment processing.
- Nationstar produced evidence that the PRA and $5,000 incentive appeared only in unsigned or ancillary documents, not the fully executed, operative agreements; it also contended it managed payments and escrow according to the agreements.
- Kangs attempted to modify Nationstar’s proposed updated loan modification with handwritten terms, which Nationstar did not accept, resulting in no new binding contract.
- The Court reviewed defendants' summary judgment motion, addressing claims of preclusion by a prior class settlement and the merits of the Kangs’ breach-of-contract claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata bars Kangs’ claims | Not addressed | Claims barred by Robinson class settlement | Not barred; claims fall outside the scope of settlement |
| PRA loan forgiveness term enforceable | Loan forgiveness (PRA) in summary is part of HAMA | Only signed HAMA is enforceable; summary not binding | PRA is not enforceable; no binding agreement |
| $5,000 incentive payment enforceable | Entitled under trial plan FAQ/letters | No signed agreement on incentive; unsigned docs insufficient | Not enforceable; no signed agreement |
| Payment/escrow mismanagement | Nationstar mishandled biweekly/escrow, engineered delinquency | Processed as agreed by forms and Deed of Trust | Defendants complied; no breach |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard: need for evidence beyond mere allegations)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment criteria for genuine factual dispute)
- Blue Mountain Const. Co. v. Grant Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 150-204, 306 P.2d 209 (Wash. 1957) (acceptance must match offer exactly to form contract under Washington law)