Parker et al v. Chase Home Finance, LLC

Filing 62

ORDER granting 57 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DARRYLE PARKER and
AMY PARKER,
Case No. 11-11540
Plaintiffs,
v.
Hon. John Corbett O’Meara
CHASE HOME FINANCE, L.L.C.,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed August
22, 2013. Plaintiffs filed their own motion for judgment on August 26, 2013, to
which Defendant responded on September 18, 2013. Pursuant to L.R. 7.1(f)(2), the
court did not hear oral argument.
BACKGROUND FACTS
Plaintiffs brought this wrongful foreclosure action on April 11, 2011, against
Defendant Chase Home Finance, LLC.1 In the complaint, Plaintiffs sought to have
the January 13, 2011 foreclosure sale set aside and also sought a modification of
their mortgage loan under the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”).
Plaintiffs’ complaint contains the following causes of action: Count I, improper
1

Defendant is JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, successor by merger
to Chase Home Finance LLC.

foreclosure; Count II, promissory estoppel; Count III, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and innocent misrepresentation; Count IV, silent fraud; Count
V, breach of contract; Count VI, breach of fiduciary duty; Count VII, declaratory
relief; and Count VIII, breach of public policy. Plaintiffs contend that while the
parties were in the midst of negotiating a loan modification, Chase proceeded with
foreclosure proceedings without notice to Plaintiffs.
While this case was pending and Plaintiffs were represented by counsel,
Chase granted Plaintiffs’ request for a HAMP loan modification in September
2012. See Def.’s Ex. C. In signing the loan modification, Plaintiffs agreed that
they were in default and that the new principal balance of the note would be
$199,837.64 as of September 1, 2012. The parties also agreed to rescind the
Sheriff’s Sale; the court entered an order to that effect on December 28, 2012.
Defendant has moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiffs’ claims
related to the foreclosure, sheriff’s sale, or loan modification are moot. Defendant
further argues that Plaintiffs’ remaining claims fail as a matter of law. See Def.’s
Br. at 5-17. Plaintiffs have not directly responded to Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment, but have filed their own motion for judgment. Plaintiffs seek
reimbursement for legal fees incurred in this matter and to challenge certain
provisions of the loan modification they signed in September 2012.
-2-

LAW AND ANALYSIS
Summary judgment is appropriate if “there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the facts
and any reasonable inferences drawn from the facts must be viewed in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith
Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). The party opposing summary judgment,
however, must present more than a “mere scintilla” of evidence; the evidence must
be such that a reasonable jury could find in favor of the plaintiff. Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986).
Defendant has submitted a properly supported motion for summary
judgment, which Plaintiffs have not contested. Plaintiffs received a loan
modification and a rescission of the foreclosure sale, which is the essence of the
relief sought in their complaint. Having reviewed Defendant’s motion, the court
concludes that Plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed as moot or because they are not
legally supportable.
Plaintiffs seek legal fees and have expressed dissatisfaction with the loan
modification they entered into in September 2012. Generally under the “American
rule,” each party to litigation is responsible for their own attorney fees, unless there
-3-

is statutory or other authority providing otherwise. See Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co.
v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240 (1975). Plaintiffs have not identified, and the
court is not aware of, any statutory or other authority for an award of attorney fees
under the circumstances presented here.
With respect to the loan modification agreement, Plaintiffs argue that their
principal balance should have been reduced based upon 2012 National Mortgage
Settlement. See Pl.’s Exs. 3,4. Plaintiffs cannot obtain relief from the terms of
their loan modification agreement here for two reasons: first, this claim was not
pleaded in their complaint; and second, this court is without jurisdiction to enforce
the National Mortgage Settlement, which is enforced through a consent judgment
entered in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. See Pl.’s
Ex. 4. Plaintiffs have not provided a legal basis for the court to invalidate or alter
the terms of their loan modification agreement.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s
motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiffs’ complaint is
DISMISSED.
s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge
Date: October 31, 2013
-4-

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties of record on this date, October 31, 2013, using the ECF system and/or
ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

-5-