436 F.Supp.3d 438
D. Mass.2020Background
- Plaintiff Dusan Pittner and his then-wife bought Florida property in 2007; Castle Peak owns the mortgage and Selene Finance services the loan. Only the wife signed the promissory note; both signed the mortgage.
- Pittner filed Chapter 11 in 2012; a Second Amended Plan was approved July 17, 2013, but the formal confirmation order was not entered until August 1, 2016 (retroactive to July 17, 2013) after the case was reopened.
- Pittner alleges he made plan payments for about a year, then Selene refused further payments and later sent a Notice of Default; Selene and Castle Peak deny these factual assertions.
- Pittner sued in bankruptcy (contempt, breach of contract, Chapter 93A, and RESPA); counts for breach, Chapter 93A, and RESPA were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and contempt was rejected on the merits in the bankruptcy court and on BAP review.
- Pittner brought the dismissed claims to this court and moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).
- The district court denied the motion because material factual disputes remain (notably whether payments were tendered and rejected and whether plaintiff sent qualified written requests).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The Chapter 11 plan (and related dealings) created enforceable contract rights; Pittner performed and defendants breached by rejecting payments | Defendants dispute the alleged rejection of payments and challenge formation/terms; factual dispute exists | Motion denied — factual disputes about payments/preclude judgment on the pleadings |
| Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A | Defendants’ conduct (refusing payments, accelerating) was unfair/deceptive | Defendants deny the underlying conduct; whether practice is unfair is fact-bound | Motion denied — unfairness is a factual question |
| RESPA §2605(e) | Pittner sent three qualified written requests (QWRs); servicer failed to respond | Defendants deny receipt/characterization of the letters as QWRs | Motion denied — disputed facts (which letters, whether QWRs) preclude judgment |
| Judgment on the pleadings standard | Pittner contends no material facts are in dispute and he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law | Defendants identify disputed material facts and deny key allegations | Court applied Rule 12(c) and denied the motion because material factual disputes remain |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivera-Gomez v. de Castro, 843 F.2d 631 (1st Cir. 1988) (standard for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c))
- Britt v. Colvin, 125 F. Supp. 3d 349 (D. Mass. 2015) (judgment on the pleadings appropriate only when material facts undisputed)
- Feliciano v. State of R.I., 160 F.3d 780 (1st Cir. 1998) (court must accept nonmoving party’s well-pleaded factual averments and draw reasonable inferences in its favor)
- Amicas, Inc. v. GMG Health Systems, Ltd., 676 F.3d 227 (1st Cir. 2012) (elements required to prove breach of contract under Massachusetts law)
- TLT Const. Corp. v. RI, Inc., 484 F.3d 130 (1st Cir. 2007) (contract formation may be a question of law when writings are undisputed)
- Spence v. Boston Edison Co., 459 N.E.2d 80 (Mass. 1983) (the unfairness inquiry under Chapter 93A is a question of fact)