Oskoui v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4365
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Mahin Oskoui refinanced her Los Angeles home in 2007; WaMu originated the loan and Chase acquired WaMu assets in 2008.
- Beginning in 2009 Oskoui applied for loan modification(s); Chase sent Trial Period Plan (TPP) letters requesting trial payments and promising a Modification Agreement after successful completion.
- Chase accepted multiple trial payments (totaling about $33,738) over ~2 years while simultaneously advancing foreclosure proceedings.
- Internal Chase records showed Oskoui was ineligible for HAMP (principal balance above program limit) and failed Chase’s NPV test for its proprietary program, but Chase did not disclose these reasons timely.
- District court granted summary judgment for Chase, finding Oskoui failed to provide requested documents; it declined to address her breach-of-contract claim. Oskoui sought leave to amend a TILA rescission claim after Jesinoski.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chase’s TPP/letters created an enforceable contract/obligation to offer a permanent modification after plaintiff completed TPP payments | Oskoui: TPP promise to send a Modification Agreement upon completion created an enforceable contract; she performed the conditions | Chase: TPP language was not an enforceable offer; any obligation was conditioned on further review/eligibility | Reversed and remanded: breach-of-contract claim viable; district court erred by not allowing it to proceed or permitting amendment |
| Whether Chase’s conduct supported a UCL (fraudulent/unfair) claim | Oskoui: Chase deceptively solicited payments while knowing she was ineligible and continued foreclosure — likely to deceive public | Chase: Actions were proper servicing decisions; no unfair/fraudulent practice | Ninth Circuit agreed with district court’s earlier denial of dismissal and held facts support a viable UCL claim; remand for further proceedings |
| Whether summary judgment was proper based on alleged failure to provide requested documentation | Oskoui: She reasonably stopped cooperating after being misled and repeatedly pressured; she had provided documentation and was misled about eligibility | Chase: Plaintiff failed to produce requested documents in late 2010, justifying summary judgment | Reversed: material disputes of fact exist about disclosure, eligibility, and reliance; summary judgment improper |
| Whether plaintiff may amend to plead a TILA rescission claim under Jesinoski | Oskoui: She sent a rescission letter in Dec. 2009 within three-year window and seeks leave to amend | Chase: FDIC transfer/waiver arguments and that waiver shields it from WaMu liabilities | Remanded: district court should permit amendment to plead rescission per Jesinoski, conditional on plaintiff filing the December 2009 rescission letter in the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2012) (TPP language can create enforceable contract after borrower performs conditions)
- Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 728 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 2013) (adopts Wigod guidance on enforceability of TPPs)
- Bushell v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 220 Cal. App. 4th 915 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (California court follows Wigod on TPP enforceability)
- Davis v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 691 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2012) (UCL fraudulent-prong standard: public likely to be deceived)
- Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 790 (U.S. 2015) (TILA rescission exercised by written notice within three years; borrower need not sue to rescind)
- Olson v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment review: view evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)