Clark v. Green Tree Servicing LLC

Decision Date24 September 2014
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 13–cv–02646–PAB–MEH
Citation69 F.Supp.3d 1203
PartiesShannon Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Colorado

Megan Lynn Lindsey, Steven Lezell Woodrow, Edelson, P.C., Denver, CO, for Plaintiff.

Martin Christopher Bryce, Jr., Ballard Spahr, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, Sarah Block Wallace, Ballard Spahr, LLP, Denver, CO, for Defendant.

ORDER

PHILIP A. BRIMMER, United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Green Tree's Motion to Dismiss Class Action Complaint [Docket No. 9]. This case arises out of plaintiff Shannon Clark's efforts to modify her mortgage loan through her servicer, defendant Green Tree Servicing LLC (Green Tree). The Court's jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2).

I. BACKGROUND
A. Allegations in the Complaint

The following allegations are set forth in the complaint and will be taken as true for the purposes of ruling on defendant's motion to dismiss. Alvarado v. KOB–TV, LLC, 493 F.3d 1210, 1215 (10th Cir.2007).

Green Tree services residential mortgage loans. Docket No. 1 at 1, ¶ 2. Over the past several years, Green Tree has purchased billions of dollars of servicing rights to loans owned by Bank of America, N.A. (“BAC”). Id. at 2, ¶ 3. In its role as a servicer, Green Tree signed a contract in April 2009 with the United States Department of the Treasury to participate in the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”), a federal program intended to help homeowners remain in their homes despite financial difficulties.Id. at 2, ¶ 4. Green Tree has failed to satisfy its obligations under HAMP, as well as under federal and state law, by (1) providing borrowers with deficient validation notices; (2) claiming to have lost or never received financial documentation submitted by borrowers; and (3) refusing to abide by the terms of permanent modification agreements. Id. at 2–3, ¶¶ 5–6. Green Tree engages in these practices in order to maximize its own profits. Id. at 3, ¶ 7.

On February 18, 2009, acting on their authority under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency introduced HAMP, designed to encourage loan servicers to modify loans. Docket No. 1 at 6–8, ¶¶ 18–20. Under HAMP, servicers receive $1,000 for each loan they modify. Id. at 7–8, ¶ 20.

A HAMP modification proceeds in two stages: first, a servicer gathers a borrower's financial information to determine whether the borrower qualifies and, if so, offers the borrower a trial period plan (“TPP”). Docket No. 1 at 9, ¶ 25. If the borrower makes all the payments under the TPP and otherwise satisfies the eligibility requirements, the servicer offers the borrower a permanent modification agreement (“PMA”). Id. Once the PMA is signed by both parties and notarized, the loan is permanently modified. Id. at 10, ¶ 27. Green Tree systematically refuses to honor TPPs that borrowers obtained from BAC before the right to service their loans was transferred to Green Tree. Id. at 9, ¶ 26. Green Tree systematically fails to honor PMAs that have been signed and recorded by unilaterally revoking agreements, reverting to borrowers' original loan terms, and coercing borrowers into signing new and less favorable PMAs by threatening them with foreclosure. Id. at 10, ¶ 27. Green Tree refuses to correct known errors in this process, fails to adequately hire and train its staff, routinely loses borrowers' documents, routinely ignores documents submitted by borrowers, and routinely disregards HAMP guidelines and directives. Id. at 10, ¶ 28.

Because banks such as BAC have decreasing incentives to retain the servicing rights to underperforming loans—which are classified as “riskier” assets that require them to hold more equity and which must be written down as default rates rise and interest rates drop—they often sell the rights to entities like Green Tree that lack the resources, ability, and incentive to service loans in compliance with applicable law. Docket No. 1 at 4–6, ¶¶ 12–17.

Plaintiff Shannon Clark is a Colorado homeowner. Docket No. 1 at 10, ¶ 29. In early 2012, she began having difficulty making her mortgage payments. She applied for a loan modification through HAMP on July 31, 2012. Id. On August 28, 2012, BAC sent a letter to plaintiff indicating that her loan would be serviced by Green Tree as of September 16, 2012. Id. at 11, ¶ 30. The notice stated that BAC would transfer documentation related to any loan modifications to Green Tree. Id. at 11, ¶ 32.

On September 14, 2012, BAC sent Ms. Clark a TPP (the “first TPP”) pursuant to HAMP. Docket No. 1 at 12, ¶ 34. Under the first TPP, Ms. Clark was required to make three monthly payments of $1,173.05. Id. at 14, ¶ 44. On September 27, 2012, Green Tree notified Ms. Clark of her designated account representative. Id. at 12, ¶ 37. On October 1, 2012, Green Tree sent her a notice reporting the total amount due on her loan. Id. at 12–13, ¶ 38.

On October 15, 2012, Ms. Clark called Green Tree and spoke with a customer service representative who stated that Green Tree had no record of Ms. Clark's first TPP or her attempts to modify her loan. Docket No. 1 at 13, ¶ 39. Ms. Clark promptly faxed a copy of her first TPP and supporting documentation to Green Tree; when she called later to confirm receipt, Green Tree denied ever receiving the documents. Id. at 13, ¶ 40. Ms. Clark then spoke with a Green Tree representative who said that a new phone application was necessary to determine whether Ms. Clark was eligible to apply for a HAMP modification. Id. at 13, ¶ 41.

On November 6, 2012, Ms. Clark received a HAMP application package from Green Tree, which stated that the application was due the same day. Docket No. 1 at 13, ¶ 42. Ms. Clark completed the application and sent it back, along with the first trial payment due under the first TPP, which Green Tree deposited in December 2012. Id. On December 10, 2012, Green Tree informed Ms. Clark that she had been approved for a HAMP trial plan and sent her a new TPP (the “second TPP”). Id. at 14, ¶ 43. Although Ms. Clark's financial circumstances had not changed since she received the first TPP, the second TPP required her to make three monthly payments of $1,381.76. Id. at 14, ¶ 44. Ms. Clark made the three trial payments due under the second TPP on January 1, February 1, and March 1, 2013. Id. at 13, ¶ 45. During that time, Ms. Clark continued to receive letters from Green Tree regarding foreclosure and the sale date of her home. Id.

On March 20, 2013, Green Tree sent Ms. Clark a PMA (the “first PMA”). Docket No. 1 at 14, ¶ 46. An attached letter instructed Ms. Clark that, [t]o accept this of fer, you must sign and return both copies of the Modification Agreement to us in the enclosed, pre-paid envelope by 04/19/2013.” Id. (emphasis in original). On April 10, 2013, Ms. Clark signed two copies of the first PMA before a notary public and sent the copies to Green Tree. Id. at 14, ¶ 47. On April 22, 2013, Jeff D. Koenig, Green Tree's Director of Default Services, signed the first PMA before a notary public. Id. On May 6, 2013, the first PMA was recorded in Jefferson County, Colorado. Id.

On July 19, 2013, Green Tree sent Ms. Clark a second PMA (the “second PMA”), which differed from the first. Docket No. 1 at 15, ¶ 50. Specifically, the second PMA had a higher principal balance, a longer term, a higher interest rate, and slightly lower monthly payments. Id. at 15, ¶ 51. The second PMA did not forgive any of Ms. Clark's principal and it provided for finance charges that were three and one-half times as high over the life of the loan. Id. at 16, ¶ 51.

Ignoring both PMAs, Green Tree sent Ms. Clark notices of default, foreclosure, loss mitigation alternatives, and her right to cure on May 28, June 5, June 17, June 19, and July 17 of 2013. Id. at 16, ¶ 52.

On July 26, 2013, Ms. Clark spoke with a Green Tree representative who told her that she did not qualify for the terms set forth in the first PMA and that the documents were sent to her in error. Id. at 16–17, ¶ 53. Based on the HAMP rules and plaintiff's financial documentation, Green Tree's representation that she did not qualify for the terms set forth in the first PMA was incorrect. Id. at 17–19, ¶¶ 55–57. On July 31, 2013, Ms. Clark spoke with another Green Tree representative about her eligibility for HAMP and the representative told her he would “personally cancel” her application and place her house in foreclosure if she did not sign the second PMA.Id. at 17, ¶ 55.

In July 2013, Ms. Clark obtained a personal credit report, which indicated that Green Tree had reported her loan as past due prior to April 2013. Docket No. 1 at 20, ¶ 62. Green Tree reported her loan as being current in April 2013 and as being over $13,000 past due in May, June, July, and August, 2013; by September 2013, Green Tree was reporting Ms. Clark as being $17,722.87 past due. Id. 20–21, ¶¶ 62–63. Green Tree's May 6, 2013 monthly billing statement listed a monthly payment of $1,102.90. Id. at 20, ¶ 63. Statements for June, July, August, and September 2013 listed a monthly payment of $1,265.87—Ms. Clark's original loan payment. Id. at 20–21, ¶ 63.

On August 7, 2013, Green Tree sent Ms. Clark an additional copy of the second PMA. Docket No. 1 at 19, ¶ 58. During the course of several conversations with Green Tree representatives regarding the second PMA, Ms. Clark was told that “Green Tree had made ‘mistakes' on its end by sending out the wrong PMAs and that it had happened to ‘lots' of other people.” Id. at 19, ¶ 59.

On September 20, 2013, Green Tree responded to a Qualified Written Request sent by Ms. Clark with a letter stating:

As you are aware, an error was detected on the modification agreement sent on March 20, 2013. A
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Blackmon v. Renasant Bank
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • March 17, 2017
    ...and unjust enrichment are mutually exclusive when both claims are based on the same set of facts."); Clark v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 69 F.Supp.3d 1203, 1222 (D. Colo. 2014) (noting that plaintiff may plead contract claim and estoppel claim in the alternative but may not ultimately prevai......
  • United Water & Sanitation Dist. v. Geo-Con, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • September 21, 2020
    ...of contract claim and a promissory estoppel claim based on the same conduct or document in the alternative. Clark v. Green Tree Serv'g LLC , 69 F. Supp. 3d 1203, 1222 (D. Colo. 2014). Similarly, a party may plead breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims in the alternative. Gorsuch, L......
  • Cahey v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • September 1, 2020
    ...misrepresented a material fact, upon which Ms. Cahey reasonably relied, and which caused her damages. See Clark v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 69 F. Supp. 3d 1203, 1223 (D. Colo. 2014) (quoting Williams v. Boyle, 72 P.3d 392, 399 (Colo. App. 2003)). Relatedly, a fraudulent concealment claims ......
  • 1881 Extraction Co. v. Kiinja Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • March 9, 2023
    ... ... McNees v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC , 853 Fed.Appx ... 211, 215 (10th Cir. 2021) (citing Van Rees ... damages.'” Clark v. Green Tree Servicing ... LLC , 69 F.Supp.3d 1203, 1223 (D. Colo ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT