Macklin v. Citimortgage, Inc.
2015 Ohio 97
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Macklins sued CitiMortgage in 2012 for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and promissory estoppel related to a HAMP modification.
- Macklins entered a Trial Period Plan (TPP) in 2009 during loan modification processing; they made reduced payments under the TPP.
- TPP stated the plan was not a modification and the loan documents remained in full force; a Modification Agreement was required for any permanent modification.
- CitiMortgage contends the TPP was non-binding and merely a temporary relief while processing the modification; no written modification was ever executed.
- Trial court granted CitiMortgage summary judgment; Macklins appealed, arguing breach of contract and related theories.
- Appellate court affirmed, holding the TPP did not bind CitiMortgage to modify the loan and that there was no valid contract or promissory estoppel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TPP created a binding contract to modify the loan | Macklin claimed the TPP obligated CitiMortgage to offer a modification. | CitiMortgage argued the TPP was non-binding and only temporary relief pending a modification agreement. | No binding modification obligation; summary judgment for CitiMortgage. |
| Whether breach of implied covenant can lie absent a contract | Implied covenant claim survives with the contract claim. | No contract means no implied covenant claim. | Implied covenant claim fails due to absence of contract. |
| Whether promissory estoppel can apply without a written modification | Defendants’ promise of modification induced reliance and injury. | No clear, definite promise to modify; reliance not justified. | Promissory estoppel claim fails; no binding promise to modify. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Bielec, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-330, 2014-Ohio-1805 (Ohio 2014) (TPP not a binding contract; temporary deviation pending permanent modification)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Robledo, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 13AP-278, 2014-Ohio-1185 (Ohio 2014) (TPP not a binding contract; modification requires separate agreement)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996) (summary judgment standards and de novo review)
- Lakota Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 108 Ohio App.3d 637, 671 N.E.2d 578 (1996) (implied covenant is part of contract claim; not a standalone claim)
- Olympic Holding Co., LLC v. ACE Ltd., 122 Ohio St.3d 89, 2009-Ohio-2057, 909 N.E.2d 93 (2009) (promissory estoppel elements)