Morris v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36247
| D. Mass. | 2011Background
- Morrises sue BAC under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A alleging BAC violated HAMP guidelines.
- BAC moves to dismiss for lack of private right of action under HAMP; court disagrees on viability but requires pleading.
- Plaintiffs refinanced in 2007, loan secured from Bank of America, N.A., later serviced by BAC and owned by Fannie Mae.
- Default occurred by August 2009; BAC/BOA foreclose action commenced; foreclosure-related notices and actions pursued by Korde & Associates.
- Plaintiffs applied for HAMP loan modification in Jan-Feb 2010; BAC allegedly sent a non-HAMP modification instead of evaluating for HAMP.
- Plaintiffs claim BAC failed to acknowledge receipt within 10 days and failed to complete evaluation within 30 days, seeking 93A relief and related remedies; court allows amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can HAMP violations support a private 93A claim? | Morris argues HAMP violations can ground 93A liability. | BAC contends no private right of action under HAMP for 93A liability. | Yes, may support 93A if independently unfair/deceptive; not automatically barred. |
| Are the alleged HAMP-related acts sufficiently pled as unfair or deceptive? | Morris pleads failure to timely evaluate and improper non-HAMP modification. | BAC argues pleading insufficient to show unfair/deceptive conduct. | Pleading insufficient; must include additional factual detail; case not dismissed yet. |
| Is recovery under 93A compatible with HAMP's objectives and enforcement mechanisms? | Damages align with foreclosure-prevention goals and service obligations. | Recovery might undermine HAMP's enforcement framework. | Recovery under 93A is compatible with HAMP objectives and enforcement structure. |
| Should the complaint be dismissed for failure to plead sufficient 93A conduct? | Oral representations suggest broader conduct supporting 93A liability. | Pleading fails to show unfairness beyond minor delays. | Not dismissed; must amend within 30 days to add further factual support. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) ( plausibility pleading standard established)
- Blackstone Realty LLC v. FDIC, 244 F.3d 193 (1st Cir. 2001) (complaint attachments treated as part of pleadings)
- Rivera v. Rhode Island, 402 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2005) (pleadings must state plausible claims)
- Commonwealth v. Fremont Inv. & Loan, 452 Mass. 733 (Mass. 2008) (Mass. 93A governing unfairness; statutory synergy)
- Mass. Eye & Ear Infirmary v. QLT Phototherapeutics, Inc., 412 F.3d 215 (1st Cir. 2005) (unfairness factors in Mass. 93A context)
- Jasty v. Wright Medical Tech., Inc., 528 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2008) (unfairness analysis considerations for 93A)