Miller v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7961

Miller owned real property in Georgia and secured a mortgage from Chase's predecessor.
In Feb 2009 Miller requested a loan modification due to financial hardship; Chase granted a temporary modification.
In Aug 2010 Chase advised it would not grant a permanent modification.
Miller alleged Chase violated HAMP by failing to issue a permanent modification, asserting breach, good faith breach, and promissory estoppel.
District court dismissed for lack of a private HAMP action; Miller appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does HAMP create an implied private right of action?	Miller asserts HAMP implies a private remedy.	Chase argues no private right; statute design and structure disfavor implied actions.	No implied private right of action under HAMP.
Can Miller state independent state-law claims given no HAMP remedy?	Miller contends independent breach and related claims exist.	Chase argues Georgia law bars independent bases; reliance on HAMP is required.	Claims fail or are premised on HAMP; no independent basis.
Are promissory estoppel and good-faith claims viable under Georgia law here?	Miller seeks relief for supposed promises of permanent modification.	No explicit promise; temporary modification cannot support estoppel or implied duty.	Promissory estoppel and good-faith claims fail; no promise alleged.

Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. v. Johannesburg Consol. Inves., 553 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2008) (factors for implying private remedies)
Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174 (U.S. 1988) (intent essential for implying private remedy)
Fid. & Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1982) (state-law domain over contract and real property)
Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570 (11th Cir. 1989) (abandoned arguments when not preserved on appeal)
Love v. Delta Air Lines, 310 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2002) (de novo review for implied private rights)