Bohnhoff v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 24

ORDER Denying Request for Permission to File a Motion to Reconsider re 23 Letter to District Judge filed by Christine L. Bohnhoff (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 4/20/2012. (PJM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 11-3408(DSD/JSM)
Christine L. Bohnhoff,
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Defendant.

This matter is before the court upon the request for leave to
file a motion to reconsider by plaintiff Christine L. Bohnhoff.
Based on a review of the file, record and proceedings herein, and
for the following reasons, the court denies the request.
Motions to reconsider require the “express permission of the
Court,” which will be granted “only upon a showing of compelling
circumstances.” D. Minn. LR 7.1(h). A motion to reconsider should
not be employed to relitigate old issues but rather to “afford an
opportunity for relief in extraordinary circumstances.”

Dale &

Selby Superette & Deli v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 838 F. Supp. 1346,
1348 (D. Minn. 1993).
Bohnhoff first argues that the decision of the Seventh Circuit
in Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2012),
provides grounds for reconsideration.

In Wigod, the court held

that a plaintiff, who was denied a permanent loan modification, had
stated a claim for breach of contract based on the language of her
Trial Period Plan (TPP).

Bohnhoff argues that the language of the

TPP in Wigod is substantially similar to her TPP,1 and thus the
court erred in its analysis.

As an initial matter, the court notes

that Wigod is a Seventh Circuit case interpreting Illinois law.
Moreover, even if the court were to find Wigod persuasive,2 the
cases are factually dissimilar.

In Wigod, TPP payments were

“timely made” and “[o]n the pleadings, [the court] assume[d] that
she complied with all other obligations under the TPP.” Wigod, 673
F.3d at 558.

Bohnhoff, however, “discontinued TPP payments” prior

to Wells Fargo approving her for a loan modification.
¶ 22.

See Compl.

Unlike Wigod, Bohnhoff was not in compliance with the terms

of the TPP,2 and thus even if the court were to construe the TPP as
a valid contract, Bohnhoff failed to adhere to the terms of the
TPP.3

1

Both TPPs state: “If I am in compliance with this Loan Trial
Period and my representations in Section 1 continue to be true in
all material respects, then the Lender will provide me with a Loan
Modification Agreement.” See App. 1, ECF No. 13; Wigod, 673 F.3d
at 558.
2

The court takes no position regarding the holding reached in
Wigod. The court is unfamiliar with the case and is without the
benefit of briefing by either party.
2

The TPP states: “If prior to the Modification Effective Date
... I have not made the Trial Period payments required under
Section 2 of this Plan ... the Loan Documents will not be modified
and this Plan will terminate.” App. ¶ 2(F), ECF No. 13.
3

In its April 3, 2012, order, the court noted: “[E]ven if a
viable contract had formed, Bohnhoff failed to meet a condition
precedent, because she stopped monthly payments.” ECF No. 21, at
8 n.4.
2

Bohnhoff also argues that the court rested its decision on an
incomplete interpretation of the TPP and an improper understanding
of the National Bank Act.

As already explained, the court will not

grant a motion to reconsider to relitigate issues already decided.
Therefore, these claims do not provide sufficient grounds for the
court to grant leave to file a motion to reconsider.
Accordingly,

IT

IS

HEREBY

ORDERED

that

the

request

for

permission to file a motion to reconsider [ECF No. 23] is denied.
Dated:

April 20, 2012
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

3