48 F. Supp. 3d 787
E.D. Pa.2014Background
- Plaintiff Bella Wilson is the administratrix/heir of Damian Wilson and owner of 6014 Ogontz Ave, Philadelphia; the Mortgage was originated with Bank of America (BOA) and later renamed to the Estate of Damian Wilson after Damian’s death in 2007.
- The Mortgage is underwater; Plaintiff sought to take control of the Property and work with BOA toward a loan modification under HAMP; BOA identified potential HAMP eligibility and provided modifications through trial periods.
- BOA initiated a foreclosure action in 2009 naming the Estate and Wilson in her administratrix/heir capacity; Plaintiff engaged housing counseling and began steps to pursue a HAMP modification.
- National Mortgage Settlement (NMS) obligations in 2012 required BOA to offer loss mitigation and related protections; BOA nevertheless obtained a default judgment and continued to foreclose while scheduling and staying sales.
- Plaintiff filed suit on April 30, 2014 asserting RESPA (Counts I–II), UTPCPL (Count III), breach of the HAMP-related TPP contract (Count IV), and promissory estoppel (Count V); BOA moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court granted in part and denied in part: dismissing claims brought in Plaintiff’s individual capacity and dismissing Count V, but denying dismissal of RESPA (Counts I–II), UTPCPL (Count III), and breach of contract (Count IV).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of plaintiff in individual capacity | Wilson argues individually she has RESPA and common-law rights. | BOA contends Wilson lacks standing as heir/administratrix for RESPA and state claims. | Wilson has no standing in her individual capacity; claims dismissed. |
| RESPA claims adequacy (Counts I–II) | RESPA demands reasonable investigation and information requests; pleading suffices. | Pre-Regulation X and post-Regulation X standards limit BOA’s duties; claims lack plausibility. | Counts I–II plead plausible RESPA claims under Regulation X and survive dismissal. |
| UTPCPL viability based on HAMP | UTPCPL claim arises from deceptive HAMP-related practices. | HAMP does not provide a private right of action; UTPCPL claim should fail as back-door to enforcement. | UTPCPL claim survives to the extent it alleges misrepresentations independent of HAMP's private right. |
| Breach of contract and TPP enforceability | TPP created a contract to modify the loan; Plaintiff complied and BOA breached. | HAMP lacks private right; TPP cannot create enforceable contract. | Breach of contract claim survives; TPP constitutes enforceable contract under pleaded facts. |
| Promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance | BOA’s promises induced expenditure to save the Property. | Existence of an enforceable contract precludes quasi-contract claims. | Promissory estoppel claim is dismissed due to contract existence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hutchinson v. Delaware Savings Bank, FSB, 410 F. Supp. 2d 374 (D.N.J. 2006) (requires proof of actual damages under RESPA f(1) and f(2))
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plaintiff must plead plausible claims, not mere recitals)
- Iqbal v. Ashcroft, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (two-pronged approach; plead plausible claims)
- Vassalotti v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 732 F. Supp. 2d 503 (E.D. Pa. 2010) (RESPA §2605(e) post-Regulation X standards for investigation vs. explanation)
- Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2012) (treats HAMP-related expectations and private action context)