Nicdao v. Chase Home Finance
839 F. Supp. 2d 1051
D. Alaska2012Background
- Plaintiff Nicdao, proceeding pro se, sues Chase for wrongful foreclosure and related loan-modification issues.
- Chase moved for judgment on the pleadings; the court granted and dismissed the action with prejudice.
- Plaintiff’s first complaint was sua sponte dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; she amended the complaint.
- Amended complaint alleges MERS involvement, improper paperwork, and forbearance/HAMP-related disputes.
- Forbearance Plan and HAMP Application formed the written context for Plaintiff’s claims; Chase’s notices and communications are in record.
- Chase submitted multiple loan documents (Note, Deed of Trust, assignments, substitutions) and Plaintiff provided opposition with exhibits; documents show Note endorsed in blank and Alaska Trustee substitutions.
- Court evaluates HAMP-based arguments, MERS-related standing, various contract/quasi-contract theories, tort claims, declaratory relief, quiet title, and Alaska CTUPA, ultimately finding no viable claim and granting judgment on the pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HAMP-related actions state a claim | Nicdao claims Chase failed to modify per HAMP. | HAMP does not obligate modification; no breach of contract. | Claims under HAMP fail; but potential contract-based claims limited. |
| Whether MERS and loan-transfer mechanics support standing | MERS ownership/separation of deed from note invalidates foreclosure. | Chase holds the note and acts for U.S. Bank; MERS not initiating foreclosure. | MERS-related claims not viable; Chase proper party to foreclose. |
| Contract and quasi-contract theories (breach, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment) | Forbearance and oral promises induced reliance; unjust enrichment possible. | No enforceable contract breach; oral promises vague; no substantial reliance. | No viable contract/quasi-contract/promissory-estoppel/unjust-enrichment claims. |
| Claims sounding in tort (wrongful foreclosure, fraud) and economic loss doctrine | Foreclosure maneuvers and misrepresentations caused damages. | Economic losses tied to contract; fraud allegations inadequately pleaded. | Tort claims rejected; economic-loss doctrine not determinative but claims fail. |
| Declaratory relief and quiet title/Alaska UTUPA claims | Foreclosure rights and defenses warrant declaratory relief and quiet title. | No valid basis to bar foreclosure or grant title relief; UTUPA defenses fail. | Declaratory relief and quiet-title claims dismissed; lis pendens vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court 2009) (pleading standards; plausibility requirement for claims)
- Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2011) (MERS-related arguments rejected; wrongful-foreclosure claims limited to state-law context)
- In re Veal, 450 B.R. 897 (9th Cir. BAP 2011) (service of transfer documents insufficient to establish real-party-in-interest status)
- Great Western Sav. Bank v. George W. Easley Co., 778 P.2d 569 (Alaska 1989) (contractual-pleading standards; causation and damages required)