Rosa v. PNC Mortgage
1:16-cv-10739
D. Mass.Sep 21, 2017Background
- Sergia G. Rosa sued PNC Bank (successor to National City) after a 2014 short sale of her Lawrence, MA home, alleging bad faith refusal to help obtain a loan modification and related emotional/financial harm.
- Complaint was pro se and unspecific about facts and legal theories; mortgage and short-sale purchase agreement were considered by the court as incorporated documents.
- Rosa asserted claims sounding in breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of M.G.L. ch. 244 § 35B, and violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A § 9.
- PNC moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to plead sufficient factual allegations supporting the claims.
- The court found the complaint largely conclusory, lacked allegations establishing any contractual duty to modify the loan, failed to plead statutory elements (including 93A notice), and dismissed the action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Rosa claims PNC refused to assist with loan modification | Mortgage does not require PNC to modify loan; no contract alleged imposing such duty | Dismissed — plaintiff failed to allege a contract duty to modify |
| Breach of implied covenant | Rosa alleges bad faith in refusing modification/handling short sale | No enforceable duty absent a contract; allegations are conclusory | Dismissed — no factual basis for bad-faith claim |
| Compliance with M.G.L. ch. 244 § 35B | Rosa alleges denial of modification contrary to statute | § 35B applies only to loans meeting statutory criteria; short sale can be an alternative | Dismissed — plaintiff did not plead that loan met § 35B criteria or why short sale was improper |
| Violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A | Rosa alleges unfair/deceptive conduct causing injury | Plaintiff did not provide statutorily required 30-day written demand notice | Dismissed — complaint fails to allege the required § 9 notice |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se pleadings are construed liberally)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim)
- Lister v. Bank of Am., N.A., 790 F.3d 20 (1st Cir. 2015) (complaint must allege facts respecting each material element of a claim)
- Rodi v. S. New Eng. Sch. of Law, 389 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2004) (§ 93A notice requirement is an element of the claim and must be alleged)
- Mass. Eye & Ear Infirmary v. QLT Phototherapeutics, Inc., 412 F.3d 215 (1st Cir. 2005) (no implied covenant claim absent an underlying contract)
- Guckenberger v. Boston Univ., 957 F. Supp. 306 (D. Mass. 1997) (elements required to plead breach of contract)
- In re Colonial Mortg. Bankers Corp., 324 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2003) (courts may consider documents fairly incorporated into the complaint on a 12(b)(6) motion)
- Henning v. Wachovia Mortg., FSB, 969 F. Supp. 2d 135 (D. Mass. 2013) (mortgage may be considered when evaluating alleged breach of mortgage obligations)