United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
B. SARIS CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Michael Carvalho has sued Defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
(“Chase”) for claims arising out of a mortgage on
a property in Rehoboth, Massachusetts. Carvalho executed a
note and mortgage on the property in 2003 and received a loan
modification from Chase in April 2014. Since June 2014, he
has failed to make timely payments on his mortgage, and he
stopped making any payments in July 2015. In light of his
default, Chase foreclosed on the property in May 2018.
Carvalho alleges Chase (1) “cancelled” the loan
modification; (2) induced him to make mortgage payments in
reliance on the loan modification; and (3) lacked standing to
foreclose on his home.
hearing, the Court ALLOWS
Chase's motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 61).
following facts are undisputed, except where otherwise noted.
purchased the property located at 279 Fairview Avenue,
Rehoboth, Massachusetts in 1999. On October 22, 2003, he
executed a note in the amount of $167, 925 in favor of First
Horizon Home Loan Corporation (“First Horizon”).
On the same day, he granted First Horizon a mortgage on the
property to secure the note.
February 28, 2009, First Horizon assigned the mortgage to
MetLife Home Loans (“MetLife”). MetLife
subsequently assigned the mortgage to Chase on March 13,
2013. In addition to holding the mortgage, Chase states it
services the note on behalf of the Federal National Mortgage
Association (“Fannie Mae”).
October 2013, Carvalho submitted a request for mortgage
assistance to Chase. In response, Carvalho and Chase executed
a loan modification agreement in April 2014. The loan
modification provided Carvalho with a lower monthly payment
and longer amortization period. In exchange for these more
favorable terms, Carvalho promised to make monthly payments
of principal and interest beginning on May 1, 2014.
started to miss timely and full loan payments in June 2014, a
month after the loan modification went into effect. He
submitted another request for mortgage assistance on October
5, 2014, along with a letter two weeks later in which he
asked for another loan modification with a lower interest
rate and forgiveness for his delinquent payments. He
continued to miss payments and stopped paying altogether in
July 2015. He alleges that he received notice at some point
between June 2014 and July 2015 that Chase had
“cancelled” the 2014 loan modification. Chase
claims it has no record of cancelling the modification.
1, 2016, Chase sent Carvalho notice of its intent to
foreclose. Chase held a foreclosure auction on May 29, 2018
after Carvalho failed to cure his default. Hanscom Federal
Credit Union purchased the property at the foreclosure sale
for $225, 000.
March 24, 2017, Carvalho sued Chase in state court. His
complaint includes five causes of action: (1) breach of
contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, (2) promissory estoppel, (3) lack of standing to
foreclose, (4) quieting title, and (5) declaratory judgment
and injunctive relief. Chase removed this action to federal
court on April 25, 2017. After discovery, Chase moves for
summary judgment on all Carvalho's claims.
judgment is appropriate when there is “no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A
genuine dispute exists where the evidence “is such that
a reasonable jury could resolve the point in the favor of the
non-moving party.” Rivera-Rivera v. Medina &
Medina, Inc., 898 F.3d 77, 87 (1st Cir. 2018) (quoting
Cherkaoui v. City of Quincy, 877 F.3d 14, 23-24 (1st
Cir. 2017)). A material fact is one with the “potential
of changing a case's outcome.” Doe v. Trs. of
Bos. Coll., 892 F.3d 67, 79 (1st Cir. 2018). “The
court must view the facts ...