Webster v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA
2012 UT App 321
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Webster, pro se, sued Chase for seven claims: contract, fraud, and three intentional tort theories after Chase demanded updated financial information.
- Webster opened a Washington Mutual HELOC in March 2007 to fund nursing school, based on representations that loan relied on home value, equity, and good credit.
- WaMu representative allegedly assured that unemployment would not prevent advances and that pay stubs or W-2s would not be required to keep the account active.
- The Equity Plus Agreement (Section 17: current financial statement upon request; Section 14(b)(iii): suspension rights for default, including failure to provide documents) governed the loan.
- WaMu was taken into receivership by the FDIC in September 2008 and Chase acquired WaMu’s assets, including Webster’s line of credit.
- Chase sent Webster a March 6, 2009 letter on WaMu letterhead requesting tax and income documentation; Webster did not respond, and Chase suspended her account.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contract claims survive given possible oral modification of the written agreement | Webster alleges an oral modification contemporaneous with the written contract. | Written contract controls; no reasonable reliance on oral promises. | Remanded; contract claims cannot be affirmatively resolved at 12(b)(6) |
| Whether fraud claims were properly dismissed for lack of reliance and lack of particularity | Webster alleged reliance on oral promises and pleaded with particularity. | Reliance may be contradicted by written terms; insufficient particularity. | Remanded; fraud claims survive and pleading adequate under Rule 9(b) |
| Whether intentional tort claims were properly dismissed | Affirmed; issues abandoned on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Gold Standard, Inc. v. Getty Oil Co., 915 P.2d 1060 (Utah 1996) (reliance barred by written documentation unless ambiguities exist or facts show reasonable reliance)
- Rubey v. Wood, 373 P.2d 386 (Utah 1962) (written agreement controls; oral promises cannot be relied on when contrary written information exists)
- Andalex Res., Inc. v. Myers, 871 P.2d 1041 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (fraud elements; future promises may support fraud if made with intent to deceive)
- MBNA Am. Bank, NA v. Goodman, 140 P.3d 589 (Utah App. 2006) (12(b)(6) standard; accept complaint as true and grant relief if no set of facts supports claim)
- Dugan v. Jones, 615 P.2d 1239 (Utah 1980) (reasonableness of reliance often a question for the fact finder)
- Coroles v. Sabey, 79 P.3d 974 (Utah App. 2003) (Rule 9(b) pleading requires who/when/where/how of fraud; attached documents can be noticed)
- Oakwood Vill. LLC v. Albertsons, Inc., 104 P.3d 1226 (Utah 2004) (documents attached to complaint incorporated for purposes of judicial notice)