Thompson v. Citigroup Mortg. Loan Tr. 2019-D

Docket Number22-cv-350-SM-AJ,2024 DNH 037
Decision Date09 May 2024
PartiesLeila J. Thompson v. Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2019 D
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire

Leila J. Thompson, pro se

Lyndsey Stults, Esq.

Kevin P. Polansky, Esq.

ORDER

Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

Pro se plaintiff, Leila J. Thompson, brought suit in state court against Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust 2019 D (“Citigroup”), seeking an injunction to stop the scheduled foreclosure sale of her home, along with other relief.Citigroup removed the case to this court.Thompson filed an amended complaint, which the court interpreted to allege claims under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq., and its implementing regulation, Regulation X, 12 C.F.R. §§ 1024.1, et seq.[1]

Thompson and Citigroup have filed cross motions for summary judgment.For the reasons that follow, the court grants summary judgment in favor of Citigroup and denies Thompson's motion.

Standard of Review

“Summary judgment is appropriate only if ‘there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'Gattineri v Wynn MA, LLC, 93 F.4th 505, 509(1st Cir.2024)(quotingFed.R.Civ.P. 56(a)).A genuine factual dispute exists if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could resolve the point in the favor of the non-moving party,” and a material fact is one “that has the potential of affecting the outcome of the case.”Hamdallah v. CPC Carolina PR, LLC, 91 F.4th 1, 16(1st Cir.2024)(internal quotation marks omitted).To decide a summary judgment motion, the court draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party from the properly supported facts in the record.Lech v. von Goeler92 F.4th 56, 64(1st Cir.2024).

The court reviews cross motions for summary judgment under the same standard but separately, drawing reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party in turn.Jespersen v Colony Ins. Co., 96 F.4th 481, 487(1st Cir.Mar. 25 2024).When a plaintiff moves for summary judgment on her own claims, to succeed, she must provide conclusive evidence that shows “no reasonable fact-finder could find other than in [her] favor.”Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Torres, 561 F.3d 74, 77(1st Cir.2009);see alsoIn re Buscone, 61 F.4th 10, 27-28(1st Cir.2023);Asociacion de Suscripcion Conjunta del Seguro de Responsabilidad Obligatorio v. Juarbe-Jimenez, 656 F.3d 42, 50 n. 10(1st Cir.2011);Brookline Opportunities, LLC v. Town of Brookline, 682 F.Supp.3d 168, 178(D.N.H.2023).Under the local rules in this district, a memorandum in support of a motion for summary judgment must include a statement of material facts each of which is supported by appropriate record citations, and a memorandum in opposition must also include a statement of properly supported material facts.LR 56.1.“All properly supported material facts set forth in the moving party's factual statement may be deemed admitted unless properly opposed by the adverse party.”LR56.1(b).

In this case, Thompson provided only a minimal statement of facts in support of her motion for summary judgment.Although Thompson filed 160 pages of exhibits with her motion, she cites few of the documents provided.[2]Thompson did not file a response to Citigroup's motion for summary judgment, which means that the court takes Citigroup's properly supported facts as true, for purposes of its motion for summary judgment.

Background[3]

Sometime before 2020, Leila Thompson obtained a loan secured by a mortgage on her property at 61 Middle Road, Deerfield, New Hampshire.[4]Citigroup holds the mortgage, which is serviced by Fay Servicing.Thompson represents that her loan was modified by the prior lender and that the modification lowered her interest rate to 2%.Thompson acknowledges that she is behind on her mortgage payments but she contends that her low interest rate is the reason that Citigroup is pursuing foreclosure rather than loan modification or other relief.

A.Factual Background

On April 1, 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Thompson contacted Fay, seeking mortgage assistance.Thompson represents in her amended complaint that Jorge Flores was her account manager at Fay.[5]She alleges that despite her efforts, Flores did not communicate with her.Doc. no. 9, at 2.The summary judgment record, however, shows communication between Thompson and Fay about assistance with her mortgage beginning in April of 2020 and continuing into 2023.

After Thompson contacted Fay on April 1, Fay sent a letter to Thompson on April 9, 2020, with information about loss mitigation options and the information it would need from Thompson to support an application for loss mitigation.Fay approved Thompson for a temporary forbearance plan on April 30, 2020, that deferred her mortgage payment for 30 days.In the notification letter, Fay informed Thompson that the forbearance plan expired on July 7, 2020.Thompson requested more assistance, and Fay responded in a letter dated June 12, 2020, approving Thompson for another forbearance plan, based on her incomplete loss mitigation application.[6]Fay deferred Thompson's mortgage payments again on June 30, 2020, and July 30, 2020, for a total of three months of deferrals.

In the June 12, 2020, letter, Fay stated that to complete the loss mitigation application Thompson would need to submit a completed and signed Borrower Assistance Form, and proof of current homeowner's insurance.If she were seeking assistance due to COVID-19, she would also need to submit a hardship letter.Fay's letter stated that it might not be able to evaluate the loss mitigation options until Thompson provided a complete application.

Thompson made a mortgage payment of $4,735.00 on August 10, 2020.Fay's notes and memos in the “Life of Loan Memo”(document no. 29-5) show several attempts to contact Thompson in August and September of 2020.Fay sent Thompson another letter on October 8, 2020, that listed options for Thompson if she were unable to make mortgage payments, provided links for help with options, and included the steps for Thompson to follow in pursuing options with Fay.

Thompson's mortgage loan was past due on December 1, 2020.Thompson represents that she contacted Fay then (Fay's records show a call from Thompson on December 5, 2020) to inquire about what assistance was available and to notify Fay that she had applied for a grant of $2,500.00.She further represents that Fay responded that they would not offer additional deferments and would only accept full payment.Thompson made a mortgage payment of $3,629.58 on December 5, 2020, which was not the full amount past due.

Fay attempted to contact Thompson between December 2020 and June 2021, without success.Thompson alleges that when she received the grant money, she sent it to Fay but that Fay did not apply it to the loan, because the loan was in foreclosure status.Fay sent letters to Thompson on March 29 and April 1, 2021, to inform her of the option to apply for loss mitigation and provided instructions on the application process.

Thompson called Fay on June 30, 2021, seeking assistance because of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and made a verbal loss mitigation application.Fay responded with a letter that explained Thompson had begun the application process with her call but the application would be incomplete unless Thompson filled out and signed a Borrower Assistance Form and provided proof of homeowners' insurance.Thompson sent Fay the loss mitigation application that day.Fay acknowledged receipt of the application by letter on July 2, 2021, and informed Thompson that the application was incomplete because it did not include a signed Borrower Assistance Form or a copy of her homeowner's insurance declaration page.Fay set a deadline of July 12, 2021, for Thompson to complete the application.

When Fay did not get a response from Thompson, a representative tried to contact her.A Fay representative talked to Thompson by telephone on August 3, 2021, and told her that her application was still incomplete because she had not provided a homeowner's insurance declaration page.[7]Fay notified Thompson again by telephone on September 2, 2021, that her application was incomplete.The notes from that conversation state that Thompson's application was still incomplete because she needed proof of homeowner's insurance and that Thompson “will work on getting a denial letter in order to get a complete LMP [loan modification plan].”Doc.no. 27-1, 116.Fay also noted that Thompson's homeowner's insurance was “force placed.”[8]Doc. 27-1, at 116.Thompson's incomplete application expired on September 30, 2021.

Fay notified Thompson by letter on February 10, 2022, that if she completed a loss mitigation application, Fay could determine whether she qualified for assistance.Thompson submitted her second loss mitigation application on March 1, 2022, and Fay acknowledged the application the same day.Fay also notified Thompson that the application again was incomplete because it lacked a completed and signed Borrower Assistance Form and the declaration page from her homeowner's insurance.Fay also notified Thompson that she had to submit a complete application by March 31, 2022, to be considered for loss mitigation options.Thompson called Fay on May 25, 2022, and she was told again that her application was incomplete.That application, the second loss mitigation application, expired on May 31, 2022.

Thompson submitted her third loss mitigation application on May 31 2022.The foreclosure sale of Thompson's property was then scheduled for July 8, 2022, which was less than 45 days from the date of her third application.Fay did not...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

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