Bank Can Be Sued in HAMP Dispute

HOMEOWNERS MAY SUE BANKS UNDER HAMP WHEN BANK DENIES PERMANENT LOAN MODIFICATION AFTER HOMEOWNER COMPLIES WITH THE TRIAL PERIOD PLAN

FACTS

Genevieve West agreed to a trial period plan with JPMorgan Chase Bank after her home loan went into default. TPP was a form of temporary loan payment reduction under the Home Affordable Mortgage Program. West complied with the terms of the TPP and timely made every payment during the trial period and afterwards.  Regardless Chase denied her a permanent loan modification via a letter dated April 5, 2010. West requested a re-evaluation, and on or about May 24, in a conference call with Chase, the bank promised her that she could resubmit her updated financial data for re-evaluation. Chase also assured her that there was no foreclosure date or sale scheduled.  However, Chase sold her home at a trustee’s sale two days later. West then sued Chase for breach of contract, and other causes of action.  Chase filed a demurrer with the trial court sustained without leave to amend. West appealed.
The 4^th District Court of Appeal said reversed in part. The Appellate court reversed and allowed her to go forward to sue JPMorgan Chase Bank for (1) fraud; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) breach of written contract; (4) promissory estoppel; and unfair competition. Under the United States Dept. of Treasury, HAMP Supplemental Directive 09-01, if a lender approves a TPP, the borrower complies with all of the terms of the TPP, and all of the borrower’s representations remain true and correct, the lender must offer a permanent loan modification.
As a party to a TPP, a borrower may sue the lender or loan servicer for its breach. Here Chase approved West for a TPP, which West dutifully complied with. Consequently, Chase was required to offer West a permanent loan modification under HAMP and its failure to do so constituted a breach of their written contract. Accordingly, West properly pleaded a breach of written contract claim, and the trial court erred in dismissing her claim without leave to amend. (West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., California Courts of Appeal, 4^th District, No. G046516, March 18, 2013;  2012 DJDAR 3471.)

Chase needs to pay for this abuse and  not some little payout but cost of home plus  neglect, plus plus plus.. time to turn the tables now. Good luck 
Genevieve West we will be following this case.