L.J. Jackson v. CitiMortgage, Inc., W2016-00701-COA-R3-CV

In 2005 the Jacksons refinanced their home with Argent, executing a Note and Deed of Trust that required any modification to be in a "signed writing." Servicing transferred to CitiMortgage in 2008.
The Jacksons defaulted beginning October 2008 and remained in arrears for years; Citi accelerated the loan after written notice in December 2010 when the default was not cured.
The Jacksons pursued loan-modification (including HAMP) reviews; Citi twice postponed scheduled foreclosure sales in 2014 but ultimately scheduled a sale for July 29, 2014, at which the property was sold to Citi.
The Jacksons’ evidence of an alleged promise to postpone the July 29 sale consisted mainly of emails between Citi’s loss‑mitigation employee (Ortwerth) and the Jacksons’ agent (Mitchell) and Mrs. Jackson’s affidavit; Mitchell later died and the Jacksons concede no signed written promise exists.
The Jacksons sued for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and intentional misrepresentation; the trial court granted summary judgment for Citi on all claims.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: it held the Statute of Frauds and the Note’s written‑modification clause barred enforcement of any alleged oral modification; the emails did not contain an unambiguous promise; and Citi owed no contractual duty to postpone foreclosure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Breach of contract: whether Citi promised to postpone foreclosure and complete modification review	Jacksons: Citi agreed (orally/via emails/agents) to finish review and postpone sale	Citi: Note/Deed require written signed modification; no written promise exists	Affirmed for Citi — Statute of Frauds and Note’s written‑modification clause bar claim; no enforceable written agreement
Promissory estoppel: whether Jacksons reasonably relied on Citi’s promise to their detriment	Jacksons: reliance on communications and postponements caused forbearance and loss	Citi: no unambiguous promise; Statute of Frauds bars it	Affirmed for Citi — no clear promise shown; reliance element fails
Good faith & fair dealing: whether Citi breached implied duty by foreclosing while review was pending	Jacksons: Citi acted in bad faith by foreclosing instead of completing review/postponing sale	Citi: no contractual duty to grant modification or postpone sale; multiple postponements already given	Affirmed for Citi — duty does not create new rights; performance per contract not bad faith
Intentional misrepresentation: whether Citi made false representations of present/past fact	Jacksons: implied promise from emails/communications caused reliance and damages	Citi: no representation of present/past fact; emails request documents and track progress only	Affirmed for Citi — no actionable misrepresentation established

Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr., 477 S.W.3d 235 (Tenn. 2015) (summary judgment standard and burdens on moving and nonmoving parties)
Dick Broadcasting Co. of Tennessee v. Oak Ridge FM, Inc., 395 S.W.3d 653 (Tenn. 2013) (contract interpretation: plain meaning controls)
Wallace v. Nat’l Bank of Commerce, 938 S.W.2d 684 (Tenn. 1996) (duty of good faith and fair dealing does not create new contractual rights)
Hodges v. Craig, 382 S.W.3d 325 (Tenn. 2012) (elements of fraudulent/intentional misrepresentation)
ARC LifeMed, Inc. v. AMC‑Tennessee, Inc., 183 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (elements of breach of contract)
Lambert v. Home Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 481 S.W.2d 770 (Tenn. 1972) (mortgage/deed of trust falls within Statute of Frauds)