Ruivo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 17344
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Ruivo appeals district court dismissal of counts 1 and 5 of her First Amended Complaint against Wells Fargo Bank.
- Count 1 purports to invoke NH RSA 397-A:2(VI), but Ruivo seeks common law fraud relief based on the same conduct.
- July–Nov 2008 refinancing closing resulted in an unfavorably altered loan: an interest-only loan with rising rates, despite assurances of better terms later.
- Ruivo allegedly relied on Wells Fargo and its agents’ assurances that refinancing would be favorable and later sought modifications after Wells Fargo’s predecessor’s demise.
- Ruivo obtained a HAMP modification in 2011 but was told it was denied due to a negative net present value from equity extraction.
- District court dismissed count 1 as a statutory claim with no implied private right of action and count 5 as promissory estoppel for lack of plausible detrimental reliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ruivo pleaded a plausible common law fraud claim. | Ruivo contends fraud was pled in count 1. | Wells Fargo argues no private common law fraud claim was pleaded. | Yes; fraud not plausibly pleaded; statutory claim only, no private right implied. |
| Whether Ruivo pleaded a plausible promissory estoppel claim. | Ruivo asserts reliance on a promise to consider modification. | Wells Fargo contends lack of detrimental reliance and benefit to promisor. | No; failure to show detrimental reliance or benefit to Wells Fargo. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grajales v. P.R. Ports Auth., 682 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2012) (standard for reviewing Rule 12(b)(6) de novo; accept facts, reject legal conclusions)
- Morales-Vallellanes v. Potter, 339 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2003) (Rule 8 notice requirements for pleading; need not cite statute)
- Thomas v. Rhode Island, 542 F.3d 944 (1st Cir. 2008) (plaintiff must identify nature of claim; certainty of notice)
- Cortés-Rivera v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 626 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2010) (pleading standards; cannot immunize vagueness by labeling later)
- A.G. ex rel. Maddox v. Elsevier, Inc., 732 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 2013) (distinguishes between factual pleading and legal conclusions)