FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PHILLIP R. CORVELLO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, DBA
America’s Servicing Company,
DBA Wells Fargo Home Mortgage,
Inc.,
Defendant-Appellee.
KAREN LUCIA; JEFFREY LUCIA, on
behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, AKA
Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.,
Defendant-Appellee.
SUMMARY*
Home Affordable Modification Program
The panel reversed the district court’s dismissals of
diversity actions challenging the decision of Wells Fargo
Bank not to offer permanent mortgage modifications to
plaintiff borrowers.
The panel held that under the Home Affordable
Modification Program the bank was contractually required to
offer the plaintiffs a permanent mortgage modification after
they complied with the requirements of a trial period plan
(“TPP”). The panel held that the district court should not
have dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaints when the record
before it showed that the bank had accepted and retained the
payments demanded by the TPP, but neither offered a
permanent modification, nor notified plaintiffs they were not
entitled to one, as required by the terms of the TPP.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Department of the Treasury, acting under the
direction of Congress, launched the Home Affordable
Modification Program (“HAMP”) in 2009 to help distressed
homeowners with delinquent mortgages, but the program
seems to have created more litigation than it has happy
homeowners. The issue we must decide is whether a bank
was contractually required to offer the plaintiffs a permanent
mortgage modification after they complied with the
requirements of a trial period plan (“TPP”). The district court
held the bank was not, and we reverse.
Similar issues have arisen in both state and federal courts.
We now follow the Seventh Circuit’s leading federal
appellate decision, which came down after the district court’s
ruling in this case, to hold that the bank was required to offer
the modification. See Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
673 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2012). The district court should not
have dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaints when the record
before it showed that the bank had accepted and retained the
payments demanded by the TPP, but neither offered a
permanent modification, nor notified plaintiffs they were not
entitled to one, as required by the terms of the TPP.
[…]
