Van Buren v. Green Tree Servicing LLC
3:14-cv-04510
N.D. Tex.Apr 21, 2017Background
- Van Buren obtained a $145,350 interest-only mortgage (Note and Deed of Trust) executed July 30, 2007, on property in Carrollton, Texas.
- Loan servicing transferred to Green Tree (later Ditech) in April 2014; Van Buren fell behind and discussed a loan modification with the servicer.
- Van Buren claims Ditech orally promised to allow a modification and to not foreclose while the request was evaluated; he alleges Ditech nevertheless proceeded toward foreclosure.
- Plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order in state court; the case was removed to federal court and later administratively closed while the parties discussed modification; no application was submitted during that closure.
- Ditech moved for summary judgment arguing Van Buren stated no actionable claims: any alleged oral modification is barred by the Texas statute of frauds, Van Buren defaulted on the loan, no evidence supports discrimination, and no viable RESPA claim exists.
- The court granted Ditech’s motion for final summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract / oral loan modification | Ditech promised opportunity to modify and to forbear foreclosure; Van Buren relied on that promise | No written agreement; any oral modification alters loan >$50,000 and is barred by statute of frauds; Van Buren defaulted | Court: Claim barred by statute of frauds; no enforceable modification; judgment for Ditech |
| Promissory estoppel | Reliance on Ditech’s promise prevented sale and caused loss of equity | Promissory estoppel cannot defeat statute of frauds; no evidence Ditech agreed to reduce promise to writing | Court: Estoppel fails; statute of frauds bars claim |
| Discrimination | Plaintiff points to inconsistent testimony by a “Ms. Peters” as evidence of discriminatory animus | No discrimination allegations or record support; Ms. Peters not in record | Court: No evidence or pleadings of discrimination; claim fails |
| RESPA (12 C.F.R. §1024.41) | (Not pleaded) — proffered as hypothetical by plaintiff | Ditech considered one loss mitigation application, denied it, and provided a written denial with reasons | Court: No RESPA violation shown; judgment for Ditech |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard and party burdens)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (genuine dispute and materiality standard)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (nonmoving party must present evidence to create genuine issue)
- Horner v. Bourland, 724 F.2d 1142 (5th Cir. 1984) (oral modifications that materially alter obligations are subject to statute of frauds)
- Ford v. City State Bank of Palacios, 44 S.W.3d 121 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 2001) (unenforceability of oral modification under statute of frauds)
- Maginn v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc., 919 S.W.2d 164 (Tex. App. — Austin 1996) (promissory estoppel does not defeat the statute of frauds)