Pilar Nino v. Flagstar Bank, 030619 FED6, 18-1503

Docket Nº:18-1503
Opinion Judge:CLAY, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Party Name:MARIA DEL PILAR NINO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, Defendant-Appellee.
Judge Panel:BEFORE: CLAY, McKEAGUE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:March 06, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

MARIA DEL PILAR NINO, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 18-1503

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

March 6, 2019

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

BEFORE: CLAY, McKEAGUE, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.

CLAY, CIRCUIT JUDGE.

Plaintiff Maria Del Pilar Nino appeals the district court's March 30, 2018 order granting Defendant Flagstar Bank, FSB's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff's amended complaint alleges that Defendant's handling of her mortgage modification (1) violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 501.204; (2) violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605(e); (3) constituted breach of contract under Florida contract law; and (4) constituted breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Florida contract law. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court's dismissal.

BACKGROUND

Factual Background

In 2006, Plaintiff obtained a mortgage on real property in Miami, Florida. Sometime between 2006 and 2010, Defendant, a Michigan-based bank, became the holder of Plaintiff's mortgage. In March 2010, Plaintiff defaulted on the mortgage, and Defendant initiated foreclosure proceedings in Florida circuit court. Over the next three years, Plaintiff worked with Defendant to modify her mortgage and prevent foreclosure.

In December 2011, Defendant approved Plaintiff's entry into a trial period plan ("TPP") under the Home Affordable Modification Program. The TPP provided that if Plaintiff made three trial period payments and submitted documents confirming her eligibility for a TPP, Defendant would send Plaintiff a permanent mortgage modification agreement. However, the TPP further provided that until that time, Plaintiff's existing loan obligations would remain in effect. Plaintiff made all three trial period payments. Accordingly, in March 2012, Defendant told Plaintiff that she had satisfactorily completed the trial period, and that it would send her a permanent mortgage modification agreement.

By May 2013, Plaintiff had not received a permanent mortgage modification agreement. As a result, from June 2013 to August 2013, Plaintiff's attorney reached out to Defendant's attorney on several occasions to inquire about the status of Plaintiff's agreement. In December 2013, Defendant provided Plaintiff with a permanent mortgage modification agreement for her review. Plaintiff promptly signed and returned the agreement. And in March 2014, Defendant executed the agreement and cancelled the foreclosure proceedings on Plaintiff's property.

Procedural History

In December 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. In February 2017, after Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff's amended complaint alleges that Defendant's handling of her loan modification (1) violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 501.204, (2) violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2605, (3) constituted breach of contract under Florida contract law, and (4) constituted breach of the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP